Knowledge of Patients' Activation Level Changes Expert US Physicians' Communication in GERD Management.

BACKGROUND: Gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) is common. Treatment is to manage symptoms, but medication nonadherence is common. To date, little emphasis has been on understanding patient behaviors and reasons for medication nonadherence. METHODS: We performed a cross-sectional survey study among expert gastroenterologists specializing in esophageal disease. Survey studies consisted of a 6-item questionnaire measuring physician knowledge of patient activation, the Clinician Support for Patient Activation Measure (CS-PAM), and an adapted 20-item Patient Assessment of Chronic Illness Care (PACIC). All question stems were specified to GERD management. RESULTS: Thirty-six experts participated. Most indicated hearing the term patient engagement before this survey (88.9%), but fewer were aware of the term patient activation (33.3%). Respondents were then made aware of the clinical significance of patient activation and asked, based on this knowledge, the likelihood that patients' activation level before the clinic would impact their communication. Responses varied between "to a great extent" and "not at all." Overall, CS-PAM activation scores were high, indicating a high level of support for patient activation. Lastly, respondents indicated their frequency of participating in partnership-building behaviors with patients. More than half (52.8%) of expert physicians "almost always" asked how GERD affected their lives, while less often asked patients about their health habits (22.2%), help set specific goals to improve their eating or exercise lifestyle (19.4%), or refer patients to a dietician, health educator, or counselor for their GERD (11.1%). CONCLUSION: Patient activation is an important strategy and may provide a behavioral approach to address medication adherence in GERD.

Quality Indicator Development for the Approach to Ineffective Esophageal Motility: A Modified Delphi Study.

GOALS: Develop quality indicators for ineffective esophageal motility (IEM). BACKGROUND: IEM is identified in up to 20% of patients undergoing esophageal high-resolution manometry (HRM) based on the Chicago Classification. The clinical significance of this pattern is not established and management remains challenging. STUDY: Using RAND/University of California, Los Angeles Appropriateness Methods, we employed a modified-Delphi approach for quality indicator statement development. Quality indicators were proposed based on prior literature. Experts independently and blindly scored proposed quality statements on importance, scientific acceptability, usability, and feasibility in a 3-round iterative process. RESULTS: All 10 of the invited esophageal experts in the management of esophageal diseases invited to participate rated 12 proposed quality indicator statements. In round 1, 7 quality indicators were rated with mixed agreement, on the majority of categories. Statements were modified based on panel suggestion, modified further following round 2's virtual discussion, and in round 3 voting identified 2 quality indicators with comprehensive agreement, 4 with partial agreement, and 1 without any agreement. The panel agreed on the concept of determining if IEM is clinically relevant to the patient's presentation and managing gastroesophageal reflux disease rather than the IEM pattern; they disagreed in all 4 domains on the use of promotility agents in IEM; and had mixed agreement on the value of a finding of IEM during anti-reflux surgical planning. CONCLUSION: Using a robust methodology, 2 IEM quality indicators were identified. These quality indicators can track performance when physicians identify this manometric pattern on HRM. This study further highlights the challenges met with IEM and the need for additional research to better understand the clinical importance of this manometric pattern.

Esophageal Lichen Planus: A Descriptive Multicenter Report.

GOALS: To better understand the characteristics, treatment approaches, and outcomes of patients with esophageal lichen planus (ELP). BACKGROUND: ELP is a rare, often unrecognized and misdiagnosed disorder. Data on this unique patient population are currently limited to small, single-center series. STUDY: A multicenter, retrospective descriptive study was conducted of adults diagnosed with ELP over a 5-year period, between January 1, 2015, and October 10, 2020, from 7 centers across the United States. RESULTS: Seventy-eight patients (average age 65 y, 86% female, 90% Caucasian) were included. Over half had at least 1 extraesophageal manifestation. Esophageal strictures (54%) and abnormal mucosa (50%) were frequent endoscopic findings, with the proximal esophagus the most common site of stricture. Approximately 20% had normal endoscopic findings. Topical steroids (64%) and/or proton pump inhibitors (74%) dominated management; endoscopic response favored steroids (43% vs. 29% respectively). Almost half of the patients required switching treatment modalities during the study period. Adjunctive therapies varied significantly between centers. CONCLUSIONS: Given its at times subtle clinical and endoscopic signs, a high index of suspicion and biopsy will improve ELP diagnosis, especially in those with extraesophageal manifestations. Effective therapies are lacking and vary significantly. Prospective investigations into optimal treatment regimens are necessary.

Esophageal Expert Development of a Preliminary Question Prompt List for Adults With Eosinophilic Esophagitis: A Modified Delphi Study.

BACKGROUND: Question prompt lists (QPLs) are structured sets of disease-specific questions intended to encourage question-asking by patients and enhance patient-physician communication. To date, an EoE-specific QPL has not been developed for EoE patients. AIM: To develop a preliminary QPL specific to adults with EoE by incorporating input from international esophageal experts. METHODS: Sixteen experts were invited to generate QPL content through a modified Delphi (RAND/University of California, Los Angeles, CA) method consisting of 2 rounds of independent ratings. In round 1, experts provided 5 answers to the prompts "what general questions should patients ask when being seen for EoE?" and "what questions do I not hear patients asking but given my experience, I believe they should be asking?" In round 2, experts rated each question on a 5-point Likert scale, and responses rated as "essential" or "important" (determined by an a priori median threshold of ≥ 4.0) were accepted for the EoE QPL. RESULTS: Ten esophageal experts participated in both rounds. Round 1 generated 100 questions. Questions were combined and modified to reduce redundancy, yielding 57 questions. After round 2, 51 questions (85%) were accepted for inclusion (median value ≥ 4.0) in the final QPL. Questions were then divided into 4 themes based on disease domains: (1) "What is EoE?," (2) "Treatment Options," (3) "Follow-up Surveillance and Long-term Risks," and (4) "Allergy and Genetic Testing." The largest number of questions covered was "What is EoE?" (16/51 or 31%). Questions with the highest agreement median (5.0) included examples such as "what should I do if I get a food impaction?" and "what are the treatment options?" CONCLUSION: This is the first preliminary EoE QPL developed in the field of medicine. We hope implementation enhances effective patient-physician communication by encouraging patients to ask relevant questions that experts prioritized. Future studies will aim to modify this communication tool by incorporating patient perspectives.

A Delphi Method for Development of a Barrett's Esophagus Question Prompt List as a Communication Tool for Optimal Patient-physician Communication.

BACKGROUND METHODS: The question prompt list content was derived through a modified Delphi process consisting of 3 rounds. In round 1, experts provided 5 answers to the prompts "What general questions should patients ask when given a new diagnosis of Barrett's esophagus" and "What questions do I not hear patients asking, but given my expertise, I believe they should be asking?" Questions were reviewed and categorized into themes. In round 2, experts rated questions on a 5-point Likert scale. In round 3, experts rerated questions modified or reduced after the previous rounds. Only questions rated as "essential" or "important" were included in Barrett's esophagus question prompt list (BE-QPL). To improve usability, questions were reduced to minimize redundancy and simplified to use language at an eighth-grade level (Fig. 1). RESULTS: Twenty-one esophageal medical and surgical experts participated in both rounds (91% males; median age 52 years). The expert panel comprised of 33% esophagologists, 24% foregut surgeons, and 24% advanced endoscopists, with a median of 15 years in clinical practice. Most (81%), worked in an academic tertiary referral hospital. In this 3-round Delphi technique, 220 questions were proposed in round 1, 122 (55.5%) were accepted into the BE-QPL and reduced down to 76 questions (round 2), and 67 questions (round 3). These 67 questions reached a Flesch Reading Ease of 68.8, interpreted as easily understood by 13 to 15 years olds. CONCLUSIONS: With multidisciplinary input, we have developed a physician-derived BE-QPL to optimize patient-physician communication. Future directions will seek patient feedback to distill the questions further to a smaller number and then assess their usability.

Identification of gaps in the delivery of high-quality care of patients with eosinophilic esophagitis.

Quality indicators (QIs) are standardized metrics that can be used to quantify health care delivery and identify important areas for practice improvement. Nine QIs pertaining to the diagnosis and management of eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) were recently established. We therefore aimed to identify existing gaps in care using these QIs. This is a retrospective, multicenter study utilizing recently established EoE QIs to evaluate practice patterns among adult gastroenterologists in the diagnosis and management of EoE. Three patient cohorts of 30 patients each presenting with dysphagia, food impaction, and new diagnosis of EoE, respectively, were obtained, yielding 120 patients per site to assess for every QI. Summary statistics were reported across two main themes: diagnosis and management. Subsequent analysis of gaps in care was then performed. The domain of diagnosis of EoE (QI 1 and 2) had the most notable gap in care with only 55% of the presenting patients undergoing appropriate evaluation for EoE. The domain of management of EoE had overall higher QI fulfillment-however it also contained significant intra-category variation in care. Notably, while 79% of patients had clinical follow-up within 1 year from remission, only 54% underwent surveillance endoscopy within 2 years of remission. In contrast, 100% of patients with symptomatic strictures independent of histologic response underwent endoscopic dilation (QI 4). Management approaches for EoE are evolving and variation in care delivery exists. We identified significant gaps in both diagnosis of EoE especially amongst patients presenting with index food impaction and long term management of EoE, when retrospectively evaluating care patterns using newly established QIs. This is the first study of its kind to utilize these previously established QIs to objectively identify care gaps that exist in EoE amongst several institutions. These findings also highlight the importance of QIs and standardization of management of complex chronic diseases like EoE to help bridge these gaps and provide a framework to measure adherence to these best practices.

Quality Indicators for the Diagnosis and Management of Eosinophilic Esophagitis.

INTRODUCTION: Despite best practice recommendations for managing eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE), variation in care exists. METHODS: We used established methodology for quality indicator development to identify metrics to define quality for the treatment of EoE. RESULTS: Among 29 proposed quality indicator statements, 9 (31%) were adopted as highly valid across all categories. Two (22%) of these statements were identified as having existing or suspected quality gaps. DISCUSSION: We identified highly valid EoE quality indicators for adult gastroenterologists, which can be used for quality improvement with resulting benefits for patient outcomes.

Esophageal Function Testing Patterns in the Evaluation and Management of Lung Transplantation: Results of a National Survey.

GOALS: We surveyed esophageal motility laboratories affiliated with adult pulmonary transplant centers to determine esophageal function testing (EFT) practices. BACKGROUND: Gastroesophageal reflux and esophageal dysmotility are associated with worse lung transplant outcomes, yet no consensus guidelines for EFT exist in this population. STUDY: A deidentified online survey was sent to gastrointestinal motility laboratory directors of 49 academic and community-affiliated medical centers that perform lung transplants. Practice characteristics, including annual lung transplant volume and institutional EFT practices pre-lung transplantation and post-lung transplantation were queried. Respondents were categorized by transplant volume into small and large programs based on median annual volume. RESULTS: Among 35 respondents (71% response rate), the median annual transplant volume was 37, and there were 18 large programs. Institutional EFT protocols were used pretransplant by 24 programs (68.6%) and post-transplant by 12 programs (34.2%). Among small and large programs, 52.9% and 72.2% always obtained high-resolution manometry before transplant, respectively. Endoscopy before transplant was performed more often in small programs (n=17, 100%) compared with large programs (n=15,83.3%). Pretransplant endoscopy ( P =0.04), barium esophagram ( P <0.01), and high-resolution manometry ( P =0.04) were more common than post-transplant. In contrast, post-transplant reflux monitoring off-therapy was more common than pretransplant ( P =0.01). In general, pulmonologists direct referrals for EFT and gastroenterology consultation (n=28, 80.0%), with symptoms primarily prompting testing. CONCLUSIONS: In the absence of established guidelines, substantial variability exists in pretransplant and post-transplant EFT, directed by pulmonologists. Standardized EFT protocols and gastroenterologist-directed management of esophageal dysfunction has potential to improve lung transplant outcomes.

The Impact of Intermittent Fasting on Patients With Suspected Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease.

GOAL: The aim was to investigate the short-term impact of time restricted feeding on patients with suspected gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD). BACKGROUND: Lifestyle modifications are often suggested, but the role of diet in GERD is unclear. Intermittent fasting is popular in the media and has demonstrated potential benefits with weight loss and inflammatory conditions as well as alterations in gastrointestinal hormones. STUDY: Patients who were referred for 96-hour ambulatory wireless pH monitoring off proton pump inhibitor to investigate GERD symptoms were screened for eligibility. Patients were instructed to maintain their baseline diet for the first 2 days of pH monitoring and switch to an intermittent fasting regimen (16 consecutive hour fast and 8 h eating window) for the second 2 days. Objective measures of reflux and GERD symptom severity were collected and analyzed. RESULTS: A total of 25 participants were analyzed. 9/25 (36%) fully adhered to the intermittent fasting regimen, with 21/25 (84%) demonstrating at least partial compliance. Mean acid exposure time on fasting days was 3.5% versus 4.3% on nonfasting days. Intermittent fasting was associated with a 0.64 reduction in acid exposure time (95% CI: -2.32, 1.05). There was a reduction in GERD symptom scores of heartburn and regurgitation during periods of intermittent fasting (14.3 vs. 9.9; difference of -4.46, 95% CI: -7.6,-1.32). CONCLUSIONS: Initial adherence to time restricted eating may be difficult for patients. There is weak statistical evidence to suggest that intermittent fasting mildly reduces acid exposure. Our data show that short-term intermittent fasting improves symptoms of both regurgitation and heartburn.

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.

Achalasia Quality Indicator Adherence.

BACKGROUND: Quality indicators (QIs) are formal ways to track health care performance and outcomes, guide quality improvement, and identify gaps in care delivery. We developed twelve quality indicators for achalasia management which cover the domains of patient education, diagnosis, and treatment of achalasia. AIM: To determine adherence to established quality indicators for achalasia management. METHODS: We performed a retrospective, multicenter evaluation of care patterns for adult patients greater than 18 years old with newly diagnosed achalasia from January 2018 to May 2020. A balanced random patient sample was obtained at four large academic medical centers. Independent electronic health record chart abstraction was performed using a standardized form to determine adherence to applicable QIs. Pooled and de-identified data were analyzed to identify gaps in care. RESULTS: A total of 120 patients were included and the overall adherence to applicable quality indicators across all centers was 86%. The median follow-up for all patients from time of diagnosis to end of study was 511 days. Clinicians adhered to all applicable quality indicators in 49 patients (39%). The quality indicator domain with the poorest adherence was patient education (67%), with 50% of patients having had a documented discussion of the risks of gastroesophageal reflux disease following surgical or endoscopic myotomy. CONCLUSIONS: Gaps in the quality of achalasia care delivery were identified, the largest of which relates to patient education about treatment risks. These findings highlight a potential area for future quality improvement studies and form the basis for developing fully specified quality measures.

Best Practices in Treatment of Laryngopharyngeal Reflux Disease: A Multidisciplinary Modified Delphi Study.

BACKGROUND: Laryngopharyngeal reflux (LPR) is a common otolaryngologic diagnosis. Treatment of presumed LPR remains challenging, and limited frameworks exist to guide treatment. METHODS: Using RAND/University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) Appropriateness Methods, a modified Delphi approach identified consensus statements to guide LPR treatment. Experts independently and blindly scored proposed statements on importance, scientific acceptability, usability, and feasibility in a four-round iterative process. Accepted measures reached scores with ≥ 80% agreement in the 7-9 range (on a 9-point Likert scale) across all four categories. RESULTS: Fifteen experts rated 36 proposed initial statements. In round one, 10 (27.8%) statements were rated as valid. In round two, 8 statements were modified based on panel suggestions, and experts subsequently rated 5 of these statements as valid. Round three's discussion refined statements not yet accepted, and in round four, additional voting identified 2 additional statements as valid. In total, 17 (47.2%) best practice statements reached consensus, touching on topics as varied as role of empiric treatment, medication use, lifestyle modifications, and indications for laryngoscopy. CONCLUSION: Using a well-tested methodology, best practice statements in the treatment of LPR were identified. The statements serve to guide physicians on LPR treatment considerations.

The Role of Symptom Association Analysis in Gastroesophageal Reflux Testing.

Gastroesophageal reflux disease is characterized by the reflux of gastric contents into the esophagus with an estimated worldwide prevalence of 8%-33%. The current paradigm in gastroesophageal reflux disease diagnosis relies on recognition of symptoms and/or the presence of mucosal disease at the time of esophagogastroduodenoscopy. Recognition of symptoms, however, can arise with challenges, particularly when patients complain of less typical symptoms. Since first reported in 1969 by Spencer et al., the application of prolonged intraesophageal pH monitoring to identify pathologic reflux has evolved considerably. Utility of pH monitoring aims to investigate the degree of acid burden and frequency of reflux episode, and the relationship between symptoms and acid reflux events. This relationship is represented by either the Symptom Index, Symptom Sensitivity Index, Symptom Association Probability, or Ghillebert Probability Estimate. This article reviews symptom-association analysis during esophageal reflux testing, covering the literature on current methods of reflux testing, interpretation of symptom association, and practical issues that can arise during symptom analysis.

Reflux Hypersensitivity: How to Approach Diagnosis and Management.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: This paper aims to review the definition and diagnostic criteria for reflux hypersensitivity and comment on the present and future management of this condition. RECENT FINDINGS: In 2016, the Rome IV criteria redefined reflux hypersensitivity as characterized by typical reflux symptoms, absence of endoscopic mucosal disease, absence of pathologic gastroesophageal reflux, and positive symptom correlation between reflux and heartburn episodes. Though uncertain, TPRV1 receptors have been implicated in the pathophysiology of reflux hypersensitivity. Recent studies have shown neuromodulators like SSRIs, SNRIs, and TCAs may be the future of managing this condition. With the release of the Rome IV criteria and availability of continuous pH monitoring, the diagnosis of reflux hypersensitivity has become more streamlined. Though there is no definitive therapy for reflux hypersensitivity, several anti-secretory agents and neuromodulators have shown some efficacy in therapeutic trials. The lack of large-scale, randomized controlled trials, however, reinforces the need for further research into the pharmacotherapy of reflux hypersensitivity.

Distal contractile integral and other key predictors of mean nocturnal baseline impedance: The role of esophageal peristaltic vigor in mucosal permeability.

BACKGROUND: Understanding the relationship between distal contractile integral (DCI) and mean nocturnal baseline impedance (MNBI) could shed light on new diagnostic and treatment strategies, specifically concerning nocturnal reflux. This study aimed to assess this relationship to enhance our comprehension of the interplay between esophageal contractility and mucosal permeability. METHODS: We identified adult patients who had high resolution esophageal manometry and pH-impedance tests performed within a 30-day period between December 2018 and March 2022. A random forest model was used to identify significant predictors of MNBI, assisting with variable selection for a following regression analysis. Subsequently, both univariable and multivariable regression models were utilized to measure the association between predictors and MNBI. KEY RESULTS: Our study included 188 patients, primarily referred for testing due to reflux. The most common motility diagnoses were normal (62%) followed by possible esophagogastric junction outflow obstruction (22%). The mean DCI was 2020 mmHg∙s∙cm and MNBI was 3.05 kΩ. The random forest model identified 12 significant predictors for MNBI, key variables being acid exposure time (AET), total proximal reflux events, intraabdominal lower esophageal sphincter length, hiatal hernia presence, and DCI. Subsequent multivariable regression analyses demonstrated log AET (ß = -0.69, p = <0.001), total proximal reflux events (ß = -0.16, p = 0.008), hiatal hernia presence (ß = -0.82, p = 0.014), log DCI (ß = 1.26, p < 0.001), and age (ß = -0.13, p = 0.036) as being significantly associated with MNBI. CONCLUSIONS AND INFERENCES: DCI is a key manometric predictor of MNBI emphasizing the role of manometry in detecting reflux risk and the need for its consideration in reflux management.

Nutrient Drink Test to Assess Gastric Accommodation in Cyclic Vomiting Syndrome: Single-blinded Parallel Grouped Prospective Study.

Background/Aims: Cyclic vomiting syndrome (CVS) is characterized by episodes of nausea and vomiting, separated by symptom-free intervals. The pathogenesis of CVS is poorly understood. Limited data exist on evaluating impaired gastric accommodation as a mechanistic means for symptoms. We aim to determine if CVS patients demonstrate impaired gastric accommodation applying a nutrient drink test (NDT) protocol. Methods: Through this single-blinded pilot clinical trial, patients with CVS per Rome IV critera and healthy controls were assessed for presence of impaired gastric accommodation by administering an established NDT protocol. Statistical analysis was performed, with data presented as medians and interquartile range. Results: Eleven CVS patients and 15 healthy controls participated in the study between January 2018 and October 2018. Median age was 42.0 years and 37.0 years; majority of subjects were female, 72.7% and 73.3%, respectively. Demographics were similar between CVS and healthy controls. Almost all healthy controls (93.3%) ingested the complete 500 mL protocol, whereas a smaller proportion (72.7%) were able to complete all 4 doses in the CVS group (P = 0.188). Post-prandial visual analogue scale scores of nausea and abdominal pain were found to be significantly higher in CVS patients compared to healthy controls. Conclusions: To our knowledge, this is the first NDT protocol in CVS evaluating the role of impaired gastric accommodation and hypersensitivity as a possible pathophysiologic mechanism. Findings from this study suggest the presence of gastric hypersensitivity in a subset of CVS patients. These results provide the foundational data necessary for future larger testing of NDT and diagnostic accuracy in CVS.

Development and modification of a dysphagia question prompt list to improve patient-physician communication: Incorporating both esophageal expert and patient perspectives.

BACKGROUND: Question prompt lists (QPLs) are structured sets of disease-specific questions, intended to encourage question-asking by patients and enhance patient-physician communication. To date, a dysphagia-specific QPL has not been developed for patients with esophageal dysphagia symptoms. We aim to develop a dysphagia-specific QPL incorporating both esophageal expert and patient perspectives, applying rigorous methodology. METHODS: The QPL content was generated applying a two-round modified Delphi (RAND/UCLA) method among 11 experts. In round one, experts provided five answers to the prompts: "What general questions should patients ask when being seen for dysphagia?" and "What questions do I not hear patients asking but, given my experience, I believe they should be asking?" In round two, experts rated proposed questions on a 5-point Likert scale. Responses rated as "essential" or "important", determined by an a priori median threshold of ≥4.0, were accepted for inclusion. Subsequently, 20 patients from Stanford Health Care were enrolled to modify the preliminary QPL, to incorporate their perspectives and opinions. Patients independently rated questions applying the same 5-point Likert scale. At the end, patients were encouraged to propose additional questions to incorporate into the QPL by open-endedly asking "Are there questions we didn't ask, that you think we should?" KEY RESULTS: Eleven experts participated in both voting rounds. Of 85 questions generated from round one, 60 (70.6%) were accepted for inclusion, meeting a median value of ≥4.0. Questions were combined to reduce redundancy, narrowing down to 44 questions. Questions were categorized into the following six themes: 1. "What is causing my dysphagia?"; 2. "Associated symptoms"; 3. "Testing for dysphagia"; 4. "Lifestyle modifications"; 5. "Treatment for dysphagia"; and 6. "Prognosis". The largest number of questions covered "What is causing my dysphagia" (27.3%). Twenty patients participated and modified the QPL. Of the 44 questions experts agreed were important, only 30 questions (68.2%) were accepted for inclusion. Six patients proposed 10 additional questions and after incorporating the suggested questions, the final dysphagia-specific QPL created by esophageal experts and modified by patients consisted of 40 questions. CONCLUSIONS & INFERENCES: Incorporating expert and patient perspectives, we developed a dysphagia-specific QPL to enhance patient-physician communication. Our study highlights importance of incorporating patient perspective when developing such a communication tool. Further studies will measure the impact of this communication tool on patient engagement.