SciELO - Scientific Electronic Library Online

 
vol.26 número1CPRE em Portugal: Inquérito sobre a profilaxia de pancreatite e estratégias de canulaçãoEpidemiologia da Falência Hepática Aguda de um Centro de Transplante Regional em Portugal índice de autoresíndice de materiabúsqueda de artículos
Home Pagelista alfabética de revistas  

Servicios Personalizados

Revista

Articulo

Indicadores

Links relacionados

  • No hay articulos similaresSimilares en SciELO

Compartir


GE-Portuguese Journal of Gastroenterology

versión impresa ISSN 2341-4545

Resumen

LISBOA-GONCALVES, Pedro et al. Quality of Reporting in Upper Gastrointestinal Endoscopy: Effect of a Simple Audit Intervention. GE Port J Gastroenterol [online]. 2019, vol.26, n.1, pp.24-32. ISSN 2341-4545.  https://doi.org/10.1159/000487145.

Background and Aim: In contrast to colonoscopy, there are few studies regarding upper gastrointestinal (UGI) endoscopy reporting its quality and ways of improving it. Quality audits are recommended, but their influence on the abovementioned quality is not well studied. Our aim was to evaluate the quality of UGI endoscopy reports and assess the effect of a simple audit intervention on UGI endoscopy reporting quality. Methods: This was a prospective study in a tertiary referral center, including the evaluation of 1,000 consecutive reports of UGI endoscopies before an audit intervention and 250 after. The reports were analyzed according to performance measures defined by three experienced gastroenterologists. Results: Before the intervention, 51.8% of the incomplete endoscopies did not present any justification for its incompleteness and 88.1% of lesions were correctly described. Overall, 64.1% of the reports were considered as being of high quality. After the audit intervention, follow-up recommendation (53.4 vs. 80.8%, p = 0.001), correct lesion description (88.1 vs. 95.8%, p = 0.001), and correct segment description (92.2 vs. 96.4%, p = 0.020) improved significantly. The rate of unjustified incomplete endoscopies decreased significantly (51.8 vs. 28.9%, p = 0.010). The highquality endoscopy rate improved 13.9% after the intervention (p < 0.001). Both specialists and residents improved with the audit intervention with a similar percentage of improvement in the high-quality endoscopy rate (13.9 vs. 13.4%). Conclusions: A simple audit intervention is a good way to improve the quality of reporting of UGI endoscopy, independently of degree and experience. Some of the performance measure accomplishments may depend on the software used by the endoscopy centers and it should be a priority to optimize it.

Palabras clave : Esophagogastroduodenoscopy; Quality audit; Software registration; Performance measure.

        · resumen en Portugués     · texto en Inglés     · Inglés ( pdf )

 

Creative Commons License Todo el contenido de esta revista, excepto dónde está identificado, está bajo una Licencia Creative Commons