Continuous quality improvement in the ambulatory endoscopy center

The Colonoscopy Satisfaction and Safety Questionnaire (CSSQP) for Colorectal Cancer Screening: A Development and Validation Study

Colonoscopy services working in colorectal cancer screening programs must perform periodic controls to improve the quality based on patients' experiences. However, there are no validated instruments in this setting that include the two core dimensions for optimal care: satisfaction and safety. The aim of this study was to design and validate a specific questionnaire for patients undergoing screening colonoscopy after a positive fecal occult blood test, the Colonoscopy Satisfaction and Safety Questionnaire based on patients' experience (CSSQP). The design included a review of available evidence and used focus groups to identify the relevant dimensions to produce the instrument (content validity). Face validity was analyzed involving 15 patients. Reliability and construct and empirical validity were calculated. Validation involved patients from the colorectal cancer screening program at two referral hospitals in Spain. The CSSQP version 1 consisted of 15 items. The principal components analysis of the satisfaction items isolated three factors with saturation of elements above 0.52 and with high internal consistency and split-half readability: Information, Care, and Service and Facilities features. The analysis of the safety items isolated two factors with element saturations above 0.58: Information Gaps and Safety Incidents. The CSSQP is a new valid and reliable tool for measuring patient' experiences, including satisfaction and safety perception, after a colorectal cancer screening colonoscopy.

Using efficiency analysis and targeted intervention to improve operational performance and achieve cost savings in the endoscopy center

BACKGROUND

With an increasing demand for endoscopy services, there is a greater need for efficiency within the endoscopy center. A validated methodology is important for evaluating efficiency in the endoscopy unit.

OBJECTIVE

To use the principles of operations management to establish a validated methodology for evaluating and enhancing operational performance in the endoscopy center.

DESIGN

Biphasic prospective study with pre-intervention and post-intervention efficiency data and analysis.

SETTING

Tertiary-care referral teaching hospital.

PATIENTS

Scheduled outpatients undergoing endoscopy.

INTERVENTION

Determination of the rate-limiting step, or bottleneck, of the endoscopy unit and reducing inefficiencies.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS

Staffing costs and a novel performance metric, True Completion Time (TCT).

RESULTS

Data were prospectively recorded for 2248 patients undergoing a total of 2713 procedures (phase I: 255 EGD, 305 colonoscopy, 91 EGD/colonoscopy, 375 EUS, 44 ERCP, 75 EUS/ERCP; phase II: 243 EGD, 328 colonoscopy, 99 EGD/colonoscopy, 335 EUS, 38 ERCP, 109 EUS/ERCP). The bottleneck of the operation was identified as the 10-bed communal pre-procedure/recovery room. On-time procedure starts increased by 51% (P < .001), and TCT was reduced by 12.2% (P < .001) across all cases studied. Overtime and per diem nursing costs were reduced by 30%, whereas full-time employee staff was reduced by 0.85. Annual cost savings were calculated as $312,618 or 11.02% of total operating expenses.

LIMITATIONS

This study is not directly tied to quality outcomes, and inpatient procedures transported to the endoscopy unit were not directly studied.

CONCLUSION

Room turnover time and room-to-endoscopist ratio are not necessarily the driving parameters behind endoscopy unit efficiency. A focus on developing a methodology for identifying factors constraining operational efficiency can improve performance and reduce costs in the endoscopy center.

Bringing top-end endoscopy to regional australia: hurdles and benefits

This paper focuses on recent experience in setting up an endoscopy unit in a large regional hospital. The mix of endoscopy in three smaller hospitals, draining into the large hospital endoscopy unit, has enabled the authors to comment on practical and achievable steps towards creating best practice endoscopy in the regional setting. The challenges of using what is available from an infrastructural equipment and personnel setting are discussed. In a fast moving field such as endoscopy, new techniques have an important role to play, and some are indeed cost effective and have been shown to improve patient care. Some of the new techniques and technologies are easily applicable to smaller endoscopy units and can be easily integrated into the practice of working endoscopists. Cost effectiveness and patient care should always be the final arbiter of what is essential, as opposed to what is nice to have. Close cooperation between referral and peripheral centers should also guide these decisions.

Quality assurance in the endoscopy unit: the view of endoscopy personnel

INTRODUCTION

Quality of health services depend on the entire medical team. A supportive team culture and effective leadership is required for successful quality assurance (QA). The opinion of endoscopy personnel towards QA is unknown, while they have to collaborate in many quality projects.

METHODS

A survey was sent to all endoscopy nurses, assistants and managers. It focused on the implementation of a QA programme. Further, a team assessment was included, focusing on leadership and team functioning, using scores on 5-point Likert scales, with 1 being a very positive opinion, and 5 being a very negative opinion towards the item.

RESULTS

294 persons completed the questionnaire (44%). 87% expressed a positive attitude towards a QA programme, and 54% thought that the implementation of a nationwide QA programme for endoscopy would be feasible. Positive effects of QA were expected on publicity (62%) and overall quality (70%). Most important QA aspects were aftercare (97%) and patient experiences (96%). Concerns were raised about the time investment (18%) and disclosure of results towards media (24%). Team assessment showed good scores on `team working' with a mean score of 1.97. Lower scores were given to the `wider organization' (3.00) and `team process' (2.42).

CONCLUSION

Endoscopy personnel have a positive attitude towards a QA programme. Besides, the team culture and its leadership are ready for the implementation of a QA programme. Efforts should be made to improve team processes and the relation with the wider organisation to ensure an optimal team culture, aimed at quality improvement.

Quality endoscopists and quality endoscopy units

Endoscopy plays an important role in the diagnosis and treatment of digestive diseases. The benefits are maximized when procedures are performed at an optimal level of quality. Technical failures and adverse events are more likely to occur when procedures are performed by inexperienced endoscopists. Professional organizations and manufacturing industry which support and represent endoscopy, and their leaders, have increasingly embraced the quality improvement paradigm that is advancing through medicine. We all need to agree on the metrics of endoscopic performance, to develop the infrastructure to collect and analyze the data, and to use the resulting knowledge to stimulate improvements in practice and benefit the patients.

[Development and validation of quality standards for colonoscopy]

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Before starting programs for colorectal cancer screening it is necessary to evaluate the quality of colonoscopy. Our objectives were to develop a group of quality indicators of colonoscopy easily applicable and to determine the variability of their achievement.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

After reviewing the bibliography we prepared 21 potential indicators of quality that were submitted to a process of selection in which we measured their facial validity, content validity, reliability and viability of their measurement. We estimated the variability of their achievement by means of the coefficient of variability (CV) and the variability of the achievement of the standards by means of chi(2).

RESULTS

Six indicators overcome the selection process: informed consent, medication administered, completed colonoscopy, complications, every polyp removed and recovered, and adenoma detection rate in patients older than 50 years. 1928 colonoscopies were included from eight endoscopy units. Every unit included the same number of colonoscopies selected by means of simple random sampling with substitution. There was an important variability in the achievement of some indicators and standards: medication administered (CV 43%, p<0.01), complications registered (CV 37%, p<0.01), every polyp removed and recovered (CV 12%, p<0.01) and adenoma detection rate in older than fifty years (CV 2%, p<0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

We have validated six quality indicators for colonoscopy which are easily measurable. An important variability exists in the achievement of some indicators and standards. Our data highlight the importance of the development of continuous quality improvement programmes for colonoscopy before starting colorectal cancer screening.

[Patient satisfaction in gastrointestinal endoscopy: results of a multicenter study]

BACKGROUND AND AIM

The aim of this study was to determine the main quality problems perceived by patients in gastrointestinal endoscopy through a satisfaction survey.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A total of 321 patients from five gastrointestinal endoscopy units were included. Telephone interviews using a previously validated questionnaire on several aspects related to the procedure were carried out. Pareto analyses were performed to pinpoint the most common aspects among the vital few causes at each medical center. Based on the questionnaire, the satisfaction indicators were calculated for each center: the overall satisfaction score (the sum of the responses to the eight questions) and the rate of perceived problems (number of questions with a negative response divided by the number of questions asked).

RESULTS

The most frequent aspects among the vital few were waiting time for an appointment and discomfort during the examination, since both factors were included in the vital few in four of the five medical centers. Significant differences were found among centers in the overall satisfaction score (questionnaire score) (p < 0.001) and for the rate of perceived problems (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

According to the patients, the most problematic aspects were waiting time until the day of the appointment and discomfort during the examination. Perceived quality differed among the participating centers.

Technical performance of colonoscopy: the key role of sedation/analgesia and other quality indicators

BACKGROUND

It is essential to identify the factors in clinical practice that influence the technical performance of colonoscopy as a basis for quality improvement programs.

AIMS

To assess the factors linked to two key indicators of colonoscopy performance, i.e., cecal intubation and polyp diagnosis.

DESIGN AND SETTING

Consecutives colonoscopies performed over a 2-wk period in 278 unselected practice sites throughout Italy were prospectively evaluated. A multivariate model was developed to identify determinants of the performance indicators of colonoscopy.

RESULTS

In total, 12,835 patients (mean age 60.5 yr, standard deviation [SD] 15.1, 53% men) were studied. Sedation and/or analgesia was administered in 55.3% of procedures: 28.8% of patients received intravenous (IV) benzodiazepines, 15.4% received benzodiazepines in combination with narcotics, 3.1% received propofol, and 7.5% received other sedation regimens. Overall, cecal intubation was achieved in 80.7% of procedures, and the polyp detection rate was 27.3%. Multivariate analysis showed that the strongest predictors of cecal intubation were the quality of bowel preparation (inadequate vs excellent: odds ratio [OR] 0.013, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.009-0.018; fair vs excellent: OR 0.246, 95% CI 0.209-0.290; and good vs excellent: OR 0.586, 95% CI 0.514-0.667) and the use of sedation (IV benzodiazepines vs no sedation: OR 1.460, 95% CI 1.282-1.663; IV benzodiazepines and narcotics vs no sedation: OR 2.128, 95% CI 1.776-2.565; and propofol vs no sedation: OR 2.355, 95% CI 1.590-3.488). The colonoscopy setting (workload and organizational complexity of the center) and the endoscopist colonoscopy volume were other factors independently correlated with completion of the procedure. Detection of polyps partially depended on the quality of bowel cleansing (inadequate vs excellent: OR 0.511, 95% CI 0.404-0.647) and use of sedation (OR 1.172, 95% CI 1.074-1.286).

CONCLUSION

In usual clinical practice, the use of sedation/analgesia, the colon-cleansing quality, the endoscopist experience, and some features related to the colonscopy setting decisively influence the quality of colonoscopy. These factors indicate the targets of future corrective measures to boost the quality of this examination.

Satisfaction of the referring physician: a quality control study focusing on EUS

INTRODUCTION

Utilization of endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) is becoming more widespread. Largely in control of use of EUS, as a primary consumer of EUS, are the physicians who refer patients. This quality control study aimed to uncover remedial impediments to ideal utilization of EUS.

METHODS

Two thousand patient EUS reports, all by one endoscopist, were screened. One hundred forty referring physicians were identified. One hundred of these physicians completed extensive feedback survey questionnaires.

RESULTS

Overall satisfaction with EUS procedures was generally high. The level of satisfaction was comparable to satisfaction with gastroscopy procedures, both being significantly higher than for endoscopic retrograde cholongio-pancreatography. Sixty-nine percent of the physicians indicated their desire for more information regarding EUS, this being significantly higher among residents (vs. specialists). The open access system in current practice was seen as acceptable by less than half of physicians, both from the community and from within the hospital. Waiting time for EUS procedures and for biopsy results were rated as acceptable within the hospital, but more often as too long for outpatients.

CONCLUSIONS

Overall satisfaction with EUS procedures is high. More information should be brought to the referring physicians, in print and lectures. Improving communication and interacting with endoscopist-initiated feedback led to improved feelings of teamwork, uncovered remedial weak points in the EUS service, and was thus found to be valuable.

Evaluation of patient satisfaction in gastrointestinal endoscopy

OBJECTIVE

Patient satisfaction questionnaires are a useful method for detecting opportunities for improvement on the basis of patient opinion. The aim of this study was to identify by means of a satisfaction questionnaire the main reasons for dissatisfaction in patients undergoing gastrointestinal endoscopy.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Five hundred and thirty-seven patients (age 49+/-15 years, 53% women) who attended a gastrointestinal endoscopy unit were interviewed 3 weeks after undergoing upper endoscopy or colonoscopy, using a previously translated and validated GHAA-9 questionnaire modified for use in gastrointestinal endoscopy. In each case, the overall score median and the percentage of patients who gave negative (poor or fair) appraisals on each of the seven main questions were estimated. These data were used to perform a Pareto analysis.

RESULTS

The overall questionnaire score median was 29 (interquartiles 25 and 75 over 26 and 32, respectively). Negative appraisal percentages for each of the seven questions were: waiting time until the appointment, 9.3%; waiting time on the day of examination, 3.5%; explanations, 3.9%; personal manner of staff, 0.5%; personal manner of the physician, 0.6%; discomfort, 3.5%; overall rating, 1.9%. The vital few found by Pareto analysis were questions regarding waiting time for appointment and adequacy of explanations regarding procedure. These questions accounted for 61% of the total number of problems encountered by patients.

CONCLUSION

Questionnaires on satisfaction or quality perceived by patients allow the most frequent causes for dissatisfaction to be identified. The main problems patients encountered were waiting time until the appointment and explanations.

The ambulatory endoscopy center (AEC): what it can do for your gastroenterology practice

Endoscopy accounts for most of the gastroenterologist's professional time and revenue. The thoughtful gastroenterologist in practice must understand the potential sites of service for endoscopy, including either the hospital endoscopy unit or an ambulatory endoscopy center (whether an office endoscopy suite or a licensed, certified, and accredited ambulatory surgery center). Out-of-hospital endoscopy centers have advantages for patients, including convenience, efficiency, economy, and more pleasant surroundings than the hospital. Payers appreciate improved access and reduced costs. For gastrointestinal practices, ambulatory endoscopy centers, particularly ambulatory surgery centers, provide significant advantages, including enhanced reimbursement and cost management, control, efficiency and convenience, quality control, opportunities for clinical research, and marketing and competitive strengths.

Quality assurance and gastrointestinal endoscopy: an audit of 500 colonoscopic procedures

The aim of this study was to assess the quality of colonoscopic procedures in our endoscopy unit with the goal of improving performance.

METHODS

We prospectively audited 500 consecutive colonoscopic procedures and assessed sixty-two process or outcome indicators for each procedure.

RESULTS

Most of the measured indicators were within standard limits: cecal intubation rate (92%), inadequate bowel preparations (24%), inappropriate procedures (9.7%), normal procedures (54%), yield for neoplasia (32%), morbidity (0.4%), and overall patient satisfaction (95.8%). Some indicators were outside standard limits suggesting our practices should be modified: endoscopy withdrawal time less than 6 minutes (78%), forceps removal of polyps (31%), resected polyps not recovered for pathological examination (12%), adenomas with villous elements (22%), patients unsatisfied because of time spent waiting for the procedure (19%), patients unsatisfied because of inadequate explanations (10%). There was no standard for a few indicators: patient discomfort (6.9%), diagnostic success (89%), therapeutic success (92%). Three new indicators were proposed: proportion of patients aged<50 years, number of normal colonoscopic procedures to perform to detect one advanced adenoma or cancer, and proportion of colonoscopic procedures causing discomfort. The diagnostic yield of colonoscopy was dependent on age, gender, indication and appropriateness of indication but not on the prescriber.

CONCLUSION

This audit allowed us to evaluate our endoscopic practices and to detect certain shortcomings and deviations from standards. It enabled us to change some of our practices with the goal of improving the quality of our colonoscopic procedures.

Inter-endoscopist variation in polyp and neoplasia pick-up rates in flexible sigmoidoscopy screening for colorectal cancer

BACKGROUND

The Norwegian Colorectal Cancer Prevention study is an ongoing flexible sigmoidoscopy (FS) screening trial for colorectal cancer. Twenty-one thousand average-risk individuals, aged 50-64 years, living in two separate areas in Norway were randomly drawn from the Population Registry and invited to once-only screening flexible sigmoidoscopy. Examinations were performed over 3 years, at 2 centres, by 8 different endoscopists, using the same type of equipment. The aim of the present study was to investigate possible differences between endoscopists in detecting individuals with polyps, adenomas and advanced lesions (adenomas with severe dysplasia and/or villous components and/or size larger than 9 mm and carcinoma) in flexible sigmoidoscopy screening.

METHODS

The present trial comprises data from 8822 individuals, aged 55-64 years, who have undergone a flexible sigmoidoscopy. In the study period, all lesions detected by the different endoscopists were registered. Tissue samples were taken from all lesions detected.

RESULTS

Detection rates varied significantly between endoscopists, ranging from 36.4% to 65.5% for individuals with any polyp, from 12.7% to 21.2% for any adenoma and from 2.9% to 5.0% for advanced lesions. In a multiple logistic regression model, the performing endoscopist was a strong independent predictor for detection of individuals with polyps (P < 0.001 ), adenomas (P < 0.001) and advanced lesions (P = 0.01).

CONCLUSION

Detection rates for colorectal lesions vary significantly between endoscopists in colorectal cancer screening. Establishing systems for monitoring performance in screening programmes is important. Supervised training and re-certification for endoscopists with poor performance should be considered.

Assessing the financial health of the endoscopy center

Just as a trend of a patient's physiologic vital signs is more informative than a single assessment, the most reliable measure of EASC financial health is achieved over a continuum of time. The earliest estimate of prognosis is accomplished with a business plan that is based on an analysis of practice history, strategic planning, and carefully derived assumptions. Periodic assessments of financial performance with benchmarking data provide a current assessment of health and allow trending of performance improvements or decline. Assurance of future financial health is derived from focusing on customer needs, developing EASC core competence, and creating value through innovation. Following these guidelines helps to ensure a strong, productive, and long-lasting EASC.

A corporate partner in the endoscopic ambulatory surgery center. Is it worth the cost?

In the preceding article of this two-part polemic on the advisability of a corporate partner in the endoscopic ambulatory surgery center (EASC), the advantages of such a partner were discussed and criteria given for judging its performance. Alternatives to the corporate partner were discussed. In that article, the corporate partnership in the EASC is a positive development yielding many benefits and few disadvantages to the physicians and the center. In this article, the balance tilts the other way.