Establishing a quality indicator format for endoscopic ultrasound

• Published in: World journal of gastrointestinal endoscopy 2013-11, Vol.5 (11), p.574-580
• Main Authors: Lachter, Jesse, Bluen, Benjamin, Waxman, Irving, Bellan, Wafaa
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: aspiration; Brief; control; Endoscopic; Fine; indicators; Malignancy; needle; Quality; ultrasound
• ISSN: 1948-5190; 1948-5190
• DOI: 10.4253/wjge.v5.i11.574

AIM: To perform a quality control(QC) review of endoscopic ultrasound(EUS) with emphasis on current consensus established quality indicators. METHODS: A national quality control study of EUS was performed with expanded international comparison. Ten different healthcare institutions in Israel participated in coordination with University of Chicago Medical Center. Each Israeli center provided ten patient reports, compared with twenty reports from University of Chicago Medical Center. Quality indicator forms were prepared with sections to be completed before, during, and after EUS. Physician compliance to all listed indicators wasevaluated. Quality indicators were evaluated prior to, during, and after performing EUS. RESULTS: One hundred different EUS procedural reports were analyzed. The mean patient age was 59 years old. Indications for referral were mostly for pancreatic or biliary reasons. QC showed several strongly reported areas, including indications for EUS(97%), anesthesia given(94%), periprocedural pancreatic evaluation(87%), and an overall summary of the EUS examination(82%). Intermediately reported areas included patients’ pertinent past medical history(71.7%), evaluation of the biliary tree(63%), and providing medical guidance about potential procedural adverse events, including pancreatitis and bleeding(52%). Half of the reports(50%) did not include a systemic organ evaluation. Other areas, including systematic reporting of screened organs(36%), description of fine needle aspiration(15%), tumor description via tumor-nodemetastasis(5%), and listing of adverse events(0%) were largely lacking from procedural documentation. CONCLUSION: Documenting specific EUS quality indicators including listing post-procedural recommendations may improve the quality and efficiency of future EUS examinations and subsequent patient follow-up.