Establishing a Model to Measure and Predict the Quality of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy

Overview

Journal World J Gastroenterol

Publisher Baishideng Publishing Group

Specialty Gastroenterology

Date 2019 Mar 6

PMID 30833807

Citations 7

Authors

Luo-Wei Wang

Han Lin

Lei Xin

Wei Qian

Tian-Jiao Wang

Jian-Zhong Zhang

Qian-Qian Meng

Bo Tian

Xu-Dong Ma

Zhao-Shen Li

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Background: Tens of millions of gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures are performed every year in China, but the quality varies significantly and related factors are complex. Individual endoscopist- and endoscopy division-related factors may be useful to establish a model to measure and predict the quality of endoscopy.

Aim: To establish a model to measure and predict the quality of gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures in mainland China.

Methods: Selected data on endoscopy experience, equipment, facility, qualification of endoscopists, and other relevant variables were collected from the National Database of Digestive Endoscopy of China. The multivariable logistic regression analysis was used to identify the potential predictive variables for occurrence of medical malpractice and patient disturbance. Linear and nonlinear regressions were used to establish models to predict incidence of endoscopic complications.

Results: In 2012, gastroscopy/colonoscopy-related complications in mainland China included bleeding in 4,359 cases (0.02%) and perforation in 914 (0.003%). Endoscopic-retrograde-cholangiopancreatography-related complications included severe acute pancreatitis in 593 cases (0.3%), bleeding in 2,151 (1.10%), perforation in 257 (0.13%) and biliary infection in 4,125 (2.11%). Moreover, 1,313 (5.0%) endoscopists encountered with medical malpractice, and 5,243 (20.0%) encountered with the disturbance from patients. The length of endoscopy experience, weekly working hours, weekly night shifts, annual vacation days and job satisfaction were predictors for the occurrence of medical malpractice and patient disturbance. However, the length of endoscopy experience and the ratio of endoscopists to nurses were not adequate to establish an effective predictive model for endoscopy complications.

Conclusion: The workload and job satisfaction of endoscopists are valuable predictors for medical malpractice or patient disturbance. More comprehensive data are needed to establish quality-predictive models for endoscopic complications.

Citing Articles

Deep learning-based anatomical position recognition for gastroscopic examination.

Su X, Liu W, Jiang S, Gao X, Chu Y, Ma L Technol Health Care. 2024; 32(S1):39-48.

PMID: 38669495 PMC: 11191429. DOI: 10.3233/THC-248004.

A diagnostic model for differentiating tuberculous spondylitis from pyogenic spondylitis: a retrospective case-control study.

Liu Y, Lei F, Zheng L, Yuan H, Zhou Q, Feng D Sci Rep. 2023; 13(1):10337.

PMID: 37365238 PMC: 10293228. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-023-36965-w.

Study on the effectiveness of modified colonoscopy nursing pads in colonoscopy.

Bao Z, Hu C, Zhu L, Wang W BMC Gastroenterol. 2022; 22(1):531.

PMID: 36539692 PMC: 9768946. DOI: 10.1186/s12876-022-02493-6.

Deep-learning model for predicting the survival of rectal adenocarcinoma patients based on a surveillance, epidemiology, and end results analysis.

Yu H, Huang T, Feng B, Lyu J BMC Cancer. 2022; 22(1):210.

PMID: 35216571 PMC: 8881858. DOI: 10.1186/s12885-022-09217-9.

Is Routine Preoperative Esophagogastroduodenoscopy Prior to Bariatric Surgery Mandatory? Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of 10,685 Patients.

El Ansari W, El-Menyar A, Sathian B, Al-Thani H, Al-Kuwari M, Al-Ansari A Obes Surg. 2020; 30(8):3073-3083.

PMID: 32468339 PMC: 7305097. DOI: 10.1007/s11695-020-04672-4.

References

Faigel D, Pike I, Baron T, Chak A, Cohen J, Deal S . Quality indicators for gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures: an introduction. Am J Gastroenterol. 2006; 101(4):866-72. DOI: 10.1111/j.1572-0241.2006.00677.x. View

Cohen J, Safdi M, Deal S, Baron T, Chak A, Hoffman B . Quality indicators for esophagogastroduodenoscopy. Am J Gastroenterol. 2006; 101(4):886-91. DOI: 10.1111/j.1572-0241.2006.00676.x. View

Baron T, Petersen B, Mergener K, Chak A, Cohen J, Deal S . Quality indicators for endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography. Am J Gastroenterol. 2006; 101(4):892-7. DOI: 10.1111/j.1572-0241.2006.00675.x. View

Baillie J, Testoni P . Are we meeting the standards set for ERCP?. Gut. 2007; 56(6):744-6. PMC: 1954871. DOI: 10.1136/gut.2006.113456. View

Williams E, Taylor S, Fairclough P, Hamlyn A, Logan R, Martin D . Risk factors for complication following ERCP; results of a large-scale, prospective multicenter study. Endoscopy. 2007; 39(9):793-801. DOI: 10.1055/s-2007-966723. View

Chang J, Xu J, Fan D . A comparative method of evaluating quality of international clinical studies in China: Analysis of site visit reports of the Clinical Research Operations and Monitoring Center. Contemp Clin Trials. 2008; 29(5):654-62. DOI: 10.1016/j.cct.2008.03.002. View

Cotton P, Garrow D, Gallagher J, Romagnuolo J . Risk factors for complications after ERCP: a multivariate analysis of 11,497 procedures over 12 years. Gastrointest Endosc. 2009; 70(1):80-8. DOI: 10.1016/j.gie.2008.10.039. View

Raftopoulos S, Segarajasingam D, Burke V, Ee H, Yusoff I . A cohort study of missed and new cancers after esophagogastroduodenoscopy. Am J Gastroenterol. 2010; 105(6):1292-7. DOI: 10.1038/ajg.2009.736. View

Enochsson L, Swahn F, Arnelo U, Nilsson M, Lohr M, Persson G . Nationwide, population-based data from 11,074 ERCP procedures from the Swedish Registry for Gallstone Surgery and ERCP. Gastrointest Endosc. 2010; 72(6):1175-84, 1184.e1-3. DOI: 10.1016/j.gie.2010.07.047. View

10.

Denis B, Sauleau E, Gendre I, Piette C, Bretagne J, Perrin P . Measurement of adenoma detection and discrimination during colonoscopy in routine practice: an exploratory study. Gastrointest Endosc. 2011; 74(6):1325-36. DOI: 10.1016/j.gie.2011.07.038. View

11.

Gavin D, Valori R, Anderson J, Donnelly M, Williams J, Swarbrick E . The national colonoscopy audit: a nationwide assessment of the quality and safety of colonoscopy in the UK. Gut. 2012; 62(2):242-9. DOI: 10.1136/gutjnl-2011-301848. View

12.

Lachter J, Bluen B, Waxman I, Bellan W . Establishing a quality indicator format for endoscopic ultrasound. World J Gastrointest Endosc. 2013; 5(11):574-80. PMC: 3831200. DOI: 10.4253/wjge.v5.i11.574. View

13.

Rutter M, Rees C . Quality in gastrointestinal endoscopy. Endoscopy. 2014; 46(6):526-8. DOI: 10.1055/s-0034-1365738. View

14.

Zhao L, Zhang X, Bai G, Wang Y . Violence against doctors in China. Lancet. 2014; 384(9945):744. DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(14)61436-7. View

15.

Pullens H, Siersema P . Quality indicators for colonoscopy: Current insights and caveats. World J Gastrointest Endosc. 2014; 6(12):571-83. PMC: 4265954. DOI: 10.4253/wjge.v6.i12.571. View

16.

Hu L, Xin L, Wang L, Qian W, Liao Z, Li Z . ERCP practitioners in China: results from national surveys in 2007 and 2013. Endoscopy. 2016; 48(4):358-63. DOI: 10.1055/s-0035-1563805. View

17.

Bretthauer M, Aabakken L, Dekker E, Kaminski M, Rosch T, Hultcrantz R . Requirements and standards facilitating quality improvement for reporting systems in gastrointestinal endoscopy: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Position Statement. Endoscopy. 2016; 48(3):291-4. DOI: 10.1055/s-0042-100186. View

18.

Graham D, Banks M . Advances in upper gastrointestinal endoscopy. F1000Res. 2016; 4. PMC: 4754008. DOI: 10.12688/f1000research.6961.1. View

19.

Rutter M, Senore C, Bisschops R, Domagk D, Valori R, Kaminski M . The European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Quality Improvement Initiative: developing performance measures. United European Gastroenterol J. 2016; 4(1):30-41. PMC: 4766555. DOI: 10.1177/2050640615624631. View

20.

Hu L, Xin L, Liao Z, Pan J, Qian W, Wang L . ERCP development in the largest developing country: a national survey from China in 2013. Gastrointest Endosc. 2016; 84(4):659-66. DOI: 10.1016/j.gie.2016.03.1328. View