Abstract
Insight into the current status of endoscopy reports is needed for a discussion on
the desirability and feasibility of (more) standardized endoscopy reporting. We collected,
from ten endoscopists, 181 reports in two diagnostic and two indication categories.
An inventory was made of the subjects dealt with in the reports, such as: indication,
premedication, therapy plan, and descriptive aspects of ventricular ulcers and lower
tract polyps. To assess endoscopists' opinions on their reports, 16 randomly selected
reports were reviewed by the ten endoscopists, using the Delphi method.
The reports varied enormously in content and detail; 19 of the 28 subjects were not
explicitly described in more than 50 % of the studied reports. Such variation in the
contents of reports may decrease the quality of care. The large number of topics that
endoscopists indicate to be missing in their reports (on average 14 topics per report)
suggests that more detail should be given in endoscopy reports. The current method
of reporting causes endoscopists to omit information that they consider important.
Due to the low overall consensus among endoscopists on which specific topics to include
(eight or more endoscopists agreed on 15 % of topics) we conclude that general criteria
for the contents of reports cannot yet be formulated. However, the fact that the endoscopists
agreed with more than one-third of the remarks made by colleagues opens a perspective
towards identifying criteria for the formalization of certain report categories.
