PDF herunterladen
CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 · Endosc Int Open 2021; 09(07): E1171-E1177
DOI: 10.1055/a-1482-7769
Original article

Quality of reporting in endoscopic ultrasound: Results of an international multicenter survey (the QUOREUS study)

Pietro Fusaroli
1   Gastroenterology Unit, Hospital of Imola, Department of Medical and Surgical Sciences – DIMEC, University of Bologna, Italy
,
Mohamad Eloubeidi
2   Anniston digestive health, Anniston, Alabama, United States
,
Claudio Calvanese
1   Gastroenterology Unit, Hospital of Imola, Department of Medical and Surgical Sciences – DIMEC, University of Bologna, Italy
,
Christoph Dietrich
3   Department of Internal Medicine 2, Caritas Krankenhaus, Bad Mergentheim, Germany
,
Christian Jenssen
4   Department of Internal Medicine, Krankenhaus Märkisch Oderland Strausberg/Wriezen; Brandenburg Institute of Clinical Ultrasound, Medical University Brandenburg, Neuruppin, Germany
,
Adrian Saftoiu
5   Department of Gastroenterology, Research Center of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, University of Medicine and Pharmacy of Craiova, Craiova, Romania
,
Claudio De Angelis
6   Department of General and Specialist Medicine, Gastroenterologia-U, Città della Salute e della Scienza di Torino, Turin, Italy
,
Shyam Varadarajulu
7   Center for Interventional Endoscopy, AdventHealth Orlando, Orlando, Florida, USA.
,
Bertrand Napoleon
8   Digestive Endoscopy Unit, Hopital Privé J Mermoz Ramsay Générale de Santé, Lyon, France
,
Andrea Lisotti
1   Gastroenterology Unit, Hospital of Imola, Department of Medical and Surgical Sciences – DIMEC, University of Bologna, Italy
,
the QUOREUS study group
› Institutsangaben
› Weitere Informationen
Auch verfügbar auf
   Lizenzen und Reprints

Abstract

Background and study aims The endoscopic report has a key role in quality improvement for gastrointestinal endoscopy. High quality standards have been set by the endoscopic societies in this field. Unlike other digestive endoscopy procedures, the quality of reporting in endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) has not been thoroughly evaluated and a reference standard is lacking.

Methods We performed an international online survey concerning the attitudes of endosonographers towards EUS reports in order to understand the needs for standardization and quality improvement. Endosonographers from different countries and institutional setting, with varying case volume and experience were invited to take part to complete a structured questionnaire.

Results We collected replies from 171 endosonographers. Overall analysis of results according to case volume, experience and working environment of respondents (academic, public hospital, private) are provided. In brief, everyone agreed on the need for standardization of EUS reporting. The use of minimal standard terminology and a structured tree with mandatory items was considered of primary importance. Image documentation was also deemed fundamental in complementing EUS reports both for patient documentation and research purposes. A strong demand for connection and consultation among endosonographers for clinical and training needs was also found. In this respect, a formal expert consultation network was advocated in order to improve the quality of reporting in EUS.

Conclusions Our survey showed a strong agreement among endosonographers who expressed the need for a standardization in order to improve the report and, as a consequence, the quality of EUS.

Supplementary material



Publikationsverlauf

Eingereicht: 16. Januar 2021

Angenommen: 18. März 2021

Artikel online veröffentlicht:
21. Juni 2021

© 2021. The Author(s). This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonDerivative-NonCommercial License, permitting copying and reproduction so long as the original work is given appropriate credit. Contents may not be used for commercial purposes, or adapted, remixed, transformed or built upon. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)

Georg Thieme Verlag KG
Rüdigerstraße 14, 70469 Stuttgart, Germany

 

  • References

  • 1 Rizk MK, Sawhney MS, Cohen J. et al. Quality indicators common to all GI endoscopic procedures. Gastrointest Endosc 2015; 81: 3-16
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Tang SJ, Raju G. Endoscopic photography and image documentation. Gastrointest Endosc 2015; 82: 925-931
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Marques S, Bispo M, Pimentel-Nunes P. et al. Image documentation in gastrointestinal endoscopy: review of recommendations. GE Port J Gastroenterol 2017; 24: 269-274
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Maratka Z. Terminology, definitions and diagnostic criteria in digestive endoscopy. With the collaboration of the members of the Terminology Committee of the World Society of Digestive Endoscopy/OMED. Scand J Gastroenterol Suppl 1984; 103: 1-74
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. Quality improvement of gastrointestinal endoscopy: guidelines for clinical application. From the ASGE. Gastrointest Endosc 1999; 49: 842-844
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 ESGE Committee for Minimal Standards for Terminology and Documentation in Digestive Endoscopy. Minimal standard terminology for databases in digestive endoscopy. Bad Homburg, Germany: NORMED Verlag; 1995
    Google Scholar
  • 7 Aabakken L, Rembacken B, LeMoine O. et al. Minimal standard terminology for gastrointestinal endoscopy -MST 3.0. Endoscopy 2009; 41: 727-728
    Artikel in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Korman LY, Delvaux M, Crespi M. The minimal standard terminology in digestive endoscopy: perspective on a standard endoscopic vocabulary. Gastrointest Endosc 2001; 53: 392-396
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Aabakken L, Barkun AN, Cotton PB. et al. Standardized endoscopic reporting. J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2014; 29: 234-240
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Armstrong D, Barkun A, Bridges R. et al. Canadian Association of Gastroenterology Safety and Quality Indicators in Endoscopy Consensus Group. Canadian Association of Gastroenterology consensus guidelines on safety and quality indicators in endoscopy. Can J Gastroenterol 2012; 26: 17-31
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Beaulieu D, Barkun AN, Dubé C. et al. Endoscopy reporting standards. Can J Gastroenterol 2013; 27: 286-292
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Bretthauer M, Aabakken L, Dekker E. et al. ESGE Quality Improvement Committee. Requirements and standards facilitating quality improvement for reporting systems in gastrointestinal endoscopy: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Position Statement. Endoscopy 2016; 48: 291-294
    Artikel in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Schwab R, Pahk E, Lachter J. Impact of endoscopic ultrasound quality assessment on improving endoscopic ultrasound reports and procedures. World J Gastrointest Endosc 2016; 8: 362-367
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Lachter J, Bluen B, Waxman I. et al. Establishing a quality indicator format for endoscopic ultrasound. World J Gastrointest Endosc 2013; 5: 574-580
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Jacobson BC, Chak A, Hoffman B. et al. ASGE/ACG Taskforce on Quality in Endoscopy. Quality indicators for endoscopic ultrasonography. Am J Gastroenterol 2006; 101: 898-901
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Fusaroli P, Kypreos D, Petrini CA. et al. Scientific publications in endoscopic ultrasonography: Changing trends in the third millennium. J Clin Gastroenterol 2011; 45: 400-404
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Fusaroli P, Kypraios D, Eloubeidi MA. et al. Levels of evidence in endoscopic ultrasonography: A systematic review. Digest Dis Sci 2012; 57: 602-609
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Coe SG, Raimondo M, Woodward TA. et al. Quality in EUS: an assessment of baseline compliance and performance improvement by using the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy-American College of Gastroenterology quality indicators. Gastrointest Endosc 2009; 69: 195-201
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Cassani L, Aihara H, Anand GS. et al. American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Training Committee. Core curriculum for EUS. Gastrointest Endosc 2020; 92: 469-473
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Jenssen C, Hocke M, Fusaroli P. et al. EFSUMB Guidelines on Interventional Ultrasound (INVUS), Part IV – EUS-guided interventions: General Aspects and EUS-guided Sampling (Short Version). Ultraschall in der Medizin 2016; 37: 157-169
    Artikel in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Fusaroli P, Jenssen C, Hocke M. et al. EFSUMB Guidelines on Interventional Ultrasound (INVUS), Part V. Ultraschall in der Medizin 2016; 37: E77-E99
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Domagk D, Oppong KW, Aabakken L. et al. Performance measures for ERCP and endoscopic ultrasound: a European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Quality Improvement Initiative. Endoscopy 2018; 50: 1116-1127
    Artikel in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Facciorusso A, Buccino RV, Muscatiello N. How to measure quality in endoscopic ultrasound. Ann Transl Med 2018; 6: 266
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Wani S, Wallace MB, Cohen J. et al. Quality indicators for EUS. Gastrointest Endosc 2015; 81: 67-80
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Aabakken L. Standardized terminology in endoscopic ultrasound. Eur J Ultrasound 1999; 10: 179-183
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Kumar NL, Housiaux A, Ryou M. How to continue learning after gastroenterology fellowship with a peer-coach. Gastroenterology 2020; 158: 812-815
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Lisotti A, Frazzoni L, Fuccio L. et al. Repeat EUS-FNA of pancreatic masses after nondiagnostic or inconclusive results: systematic review and meta-analysis. Gastrointest Endosc 2020; 91: 1234-1241
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar