Impact of Endotracheal Intubation on Interventional Endoscopy Unit Efficiency Metrics at a Tertiary Academic Medical Center.

OBJECTIVES: Measures for evaluating interventional endoscopy unit efficiency have not been adequately validated, especially in reference to the involvement of anesthesia services for endoscopy. Primary aim was to compare process measures/metrics of interventional endoscopy unit efficiency between intubated and non-intubated patients. Secondary aim was to assess variables associated with the need for endotracheal intubation. METHODS: The prospectively collected endoscopy unit metrics database at UF Health was reviewed for procedures performed in the interventional endoscopy unit for 6 months. Parameters included hospital-mandated metrics available from the database. RESULTS: A total of 1,421 patients underwent 1,635 interventional endoscopic procedures and 271/1,421 patients (19.1%) were intubated. There was no significant difference between intubated and non-intubated cohorts with respect to age, gender, BMI, ASA Score, Mallampati Score, or the Charlson Comorbidity Index. Patients undergoing endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) were more frequently intubated than those undergoing non-ERCP procedures (41.3 vs. 12.4%, P<0.0001). Inpatients comprised 48.3% of all intubated patients, whereas only 29.2% of non-intubated patients were inpatients (P<0.0001). Most patients (159/271, 58.7%) were intubated per anesthesiologist preference. All process efficiency metrics were significantly prolonged in the intubated compared with the non-intubated patient cohort, except the time interval between successive procedures. Multivariate analysis revealed that patients with an anesthesiologist who had performed a greater number of total endoscopic sedations were less likely to be intubated than patients with an anesthesiologist who had performed fewer total procedures (P=0.0066). CONCLUSIONS: Endotracheal intubation negatively impacts efficiency metrics in an interventional endoscopy unit. Careful assessment for the need for intubation should be emphasized.

Evaluation of interventional endoscopy unit efficiency metrics at a tertiary academic medical center.

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS: There is an increasing demand for interventional endoscopic services and the need to develop efficient endoscopic units. The aim of this study was to analyze performance data and define metrics to improve efficiency in a single academic interventional endoscopy center. ] PATIENTS AND METHODS: The prospective operations performance data (6-month period) of our interventional endoscopy unit (EU) was analyzed. First-case start time (FIRST) delay was defined as any time the first patient of the day entered the endoscopy room after the scheduled time. Non-endoscopy time (NET) and total time (TT) were defined as non-procedural and total time elapsed in the EU, respectively. Time-interval between successive patients (TISP) was defined as the time from one patient departure from the room until the time of arrival of the next patient in the room. RESULTS: A total of 1421 patients underwent 1635 endoscopic procedures. FIRST was delayed (54.2 % cases) by 13.6 min (range 1 - 53), but started within 15 min of the scheduled time in 85 % of the cases. NET accounted for 9.1 hours (67.2 %) of 13.5 hours TT/day. TISP (37.1 min, range 5 - 125) comprised 54.2 % of the NET, and was delayed (> 30 min) in 49.8 % of cases. "Patient flow" processes (registration, admission, transportation, scheduling) accounted for 50.1 % of TISP delays. CONCLUSIONS: Delays in NET, specifically TISP, rather than FIRST, were identified as a cause for decreased efficiency. "Patient flow" processes were the main reasons for delays in TISP. This study identifies potential process measures that can be used as benchmarks to improve efficiency in the EU.

Prospective evaluation of the long-term outcomes after deep small-bowel spiral enteroscopy in patients with obscure GI bleeding.

BACKGROUND: Spiral enteroscopy can be safe and effective in the short term for evaluation of obscure GI bleeding, but long-term data are lacking. OBJECTIVE: To assess the long-term clinical outcomes after deep small-bowel spiral enteroscopy performed for obscure GI bleeding. DESIGN: Prospective cohort study. SETTING: Academic referral center. PATIENTS: This study included 78 patients who underwent antegrade spiral enteroscopy for evaluation of obscure GI bleeding. INTERVENTION: Diagnostic spiral enteroscopy with hemostatic therapeutic maneuvers applied as indicated. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: Postprocedure evidence of recurrent overt GI bleeding, blood transfusion requirements, need for iron supplementation, serum hemoglobin values, and the need for additional therapeutic procedures. RESULTS: Long-term follow-up data (mean [± standard deviation] 25.3 ± 7.5 months; range 12.9-38.8 months) were obtained in 61 patients (78%). Among those with long-term follow-up data, overt bleeding before spiral enteroscopy was present in 62%, compared with 26% in the follow-up period (P < .0001). The mean (± SD) hemoglobin value increased from 10.6 ± 1.8 to 12.6 ± 1.9 g/dL (P < .0001). Blood transfusion requirements decreased by a mean of 4.19 units per patient (P = .0002), and the need for iron supplementation (P = .0487) and additional procedures (P < .0001) decreased in the follow-up period. There were 8 adverse events (9%) (7 mild, 1 moderate). LIMITATIONS: Single-center study, intervention bias. CONCLUSION: In patients with obscure GI bleeding, deep small-bowel spiral enteroscopy is safe and effective in reducing the incidence of overt bleeding. An increase in hemoglobin values along with a decrease in blood transfusion requirement, need for iron supplementation, and need for additional therapeutic procedures were found over long-term follow-up. ( CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT00861263.).