RESUMO
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.
RESUMO
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.
RESUMO
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.