Quality Indicators for Capsule Endoscopy and Deep Enteroscopy.
| Autor: | Leighton JA; Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, Arizona, USA., Brock AS; Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, South Carolina, USA., Semrad CE; Gastroenterology, University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois, USA., Hass DJ; Division of Digestive Diseases, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut, USA.; PACT Gastroenterology Center, Hamden, Connecticut, USA., Guda NM; GI Associates, Aurora St. Luke's Medical Center, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA., Barkin JA; Division of Gastroenterology, University of Miami, Miami, Florida, USA., Eisen GM; Gastroenterology, The Oregon Clinic, Portland, Oregon, USA. |
|---|---|
| Jazyk: | angličtina |
| Zdroj: | The American journal of gastroenterology [Am J Gastroenterol] 2022 Nov 01; Vol. 117 (11), pp. 1780-1796. Date of Electronic Publication: 2022 Sep 26. |
| DOI: | 10.14309/ajg.0000000000001903 |
| Abstrakt: | Introduction: Capsule endoscopy (CE) and deep enteroscopy (DE) can be useful for diagnosing and treating suspected small-bowel disease. Guidelines and detailed recommendations exist for the use of CE/DE, but comprehensive quality indicators are lacking. The goal of this task force was to develop quality indicators for appropriate use of CE/DE by using a modified RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method. Methods: An expert panel of 7 gastroenterologists with diverse practice experience was assembled to identify quality indicators. A literature review was conducted to develop a list of proposed quality indicators applicable to preprocedure, intraprocedure, and postprocedure periods. The panelists reviewed the literature; identified and modified proposed quality indicators; rated them on the basis of scientific evidence, validity, and necessity; and determined proposed performance targets. Agreement and consensus with the proposed indicators were verified using the RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method. Results: The voting procedure to prioritize metrics emphasized selecting measures to improve quality and overall patient care. Panelists rated indicators on the perceived appropriateness and necessity for clinical practice. After voting and discussion, 2 quality indicators ranked as inappropriate or uncertain were excluded. Each quality indicator was categorized by measure type, performance target, and summary of evidence. The task force identified 13 quality indicators for CE and DE. Discussion: Comprehensive quality indicators have not existed for CE or DE. The task force identified quality indicators that can be incorporated into clinical practice. The panel also addressed existing knowledge gaps and posed research questions to better inform future research and quality guidelines for these procedures. (Copyright © 2022 by The American College of Gastroenterology and the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy.) |
| Databáze: | MEDLINE |
| Externí odkaz: |
|