AGA Institute Quality Indicator Development and Uses

Identification of gaps in the delivery of high-quality care of patients with eosinophilic esophagitis

Quality indicators (QIs) are standardized metrics that can be used to quantify health care delivery and identify important areas for practice improvement. Nine QIs pertaining to the diagnosis and management of eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) were recently established. We therefore aimed to identify existing gaps in care using these QIs. This is a retrospective, multicenter study utilizing recently established EoE QIs to evaluate practice patterns among adult gastroenterologists in the diagnosis and management of EoE. Three patient cohorts of 30 patients each presenting with dysphagia, food impaction, and new diagnosis of EoE, respectively, were obtained, yielding 120 patients per site to assess for every QI. Summary statistics were reported across two main themes: diagnosis and management. Subsequent analysis of gaps in care was then performed. The domain of diagnosis of EoE (QI 1 and 2) had the most notable gap in care with only 55% of the presenting patients undergoing appropriate evaluation for EoE. The domain of management of EoE had overall higher QI fulfillment-however it also contained significant intra-category variation in care. Notably, while 79% of patients had clinical follow-up within 1 year from remission, only 54% underwent surveillance endoscopy within 2 years of remission. In contrast, 100% of patients with symptomatic strictures independent of histologic response underwent endoscopic dilation (QI 4). Management approaches for EoE are evolving and variation in care delivery exists. We identified significant gaps in both diagnosis of EoE especially amongst patients presenting with index food impaction and long term management of EoE, when retrospectively evaluating care patterns using newly established QIs. This is the first study of its kind to utilize these previously established QIs to objectively identify care gaps that exist in EoE amongst several institutions. These findings also highlight the importance of QIs and standardization of management of complex chronic diseases like EoE to help bridge these gaps and provide a framework to measure adherence to these best practices.

Impact of Interhospital Transfer on Outcomes in Acute Pancreatitis: Implications for Healthcare Quality

Background/Objectives: Effective management of acute pancreatitis (AP) hinges on prompt volume resuscitation and is adversely affected by delays in diagnosis. Given diverse clinical settings (tertiary care vs. community hospitals), further investigation is needed to understand the impact of the initial setting to which patients presented on clinical outcomes and quality of care. This study aimed to compare outcomes and quality indicators between AP patients who first presented to the emergency department (ED) of a tertiary care center and AP patients transferred from community hospitals. Methods: This study included AP patients managed at our tertiary care hospital between 2008 and 2018. We compared demographics and outcomes, including length of stay (LOS), intensive care unit (ICU) admission, rates of local and systemic complications, re-admission rates, and one-year mortality in transferred patients and those admitted from the ED. Quality indicators of interest included duration of volume resuscitation, time until advancement to enteral feeding, pain requiring opioid medication [measured in morphine milliequivalent (MME) dosing], and surgical referrals for cholecystectomy. Categorical variables were analyzed by chi-square or Fisher's exact test; continuous variables were compared using Kruskal-Wallis tests. Regression was performed to assess the impact of transfer status on our outcomes of interest. Results: Our cohort of 882 AP patients comprised 648 patients admitted from the ED and 234 patients transferred from a community hospital. Transferred patients were older (54.6 vs. 51.0 years old, p < 0.01) and had less frequent alcohol use (28% vs. 39%, p < 0.01). Transferred patients had a significantly greater frequency of gallstone AP (40% vs. 23%), but a lower frequency of alcohol AP (16% vs. 22%) and idiopathic AP (29% vs. 41%) (p < 0.001). Regarding clinical outcomes, transferred patients had significantly higher rates of severe AP (revised Atlanta classification) (10% vs. 2% severe, p < 0.001) and ICU admission (8% vs. 2%, p < 0.001) and longer median LOS (5 vs. 4 days, p < 0.001). Regarding quality indicators, there was no significant difference in the number of days of intravenous fluid administration, or days until advancement to enteral feeding, pain requiring opioid pain medication, or rates of surgical referral for cholecystectomy. Conclusions: Though the quality of care was similar in both groups, transferred patients had more severe AP with higher rates of systemic complications and ICU admissions and longer LOS, with no difference in quality indicators between groups.

Measuring and improving quality in esophageal care and swallowing disorders

Evaluating clinical care through quality-related metrics is increasingly common. There are now numerous quality statements and indicators related to the medical management of benign and pre-malignant esophageal diseases. Expert consensus leveraging evidence-based recommendations from published society guidelines has been the most frequently used basis for developing esophageal quality statements. While surgical care of patients with esophageal malignancies, including squamous cell carcinoma, has also been developed, those related to benign esophageal disease now include domains of diagnosis, treatment, and monitoring for gastroesophageal reflux disease, eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE), achalasia, and Barrett's esophagus (BE). Several recent studies evaluating adherence to quality metrics affirm substantial variation in practice patterns with opportunities for improvement in care across esophageal diseases. In particular, patient education regarding treatment options in achalasia, frequency of esophageal biopsies among patients with dysphagia to evaluate for EoE, and endoscopic evaluation within a BE segment are areas identified to have need for improvement. As the management of esophageal diseases becomes more complex and interdisciplinary, adherence to quality metrics may be a source of standardization and improvement in delivery and ultimately patient outcomes. Indeed, the development of national quality databases has resulted in a significant growth in the use of these metrics for quality improvement activities and may form the basis for future inclusion in quality reporting and payment programs.