The endoscopy safety checklist: A longitudinal study of factors affecting compliance in a tertiary referral centre within the United Kingdom

Implementation of a Customized Safety Checklist in Gastrointestinal Endoscopy and the Importance of Team Time Out-A Dual-Center Pilot Study

Background and Objectives: Checking and correctly preparing the patient for endoscopic procedures is a mandatory step for the safety and quality of the interventions. The aim of this paper is to emphasize the importance and necessity of a "team time out" as well as the implementation of a customized "checklist" before the actual procedure. Material and Methods: We developed and implemented a checklist for the safe conduct of endoscopies and for the entire team to thoroughly know about the patient's medical history. The subjects of this study were 15 physicians and 8 endoscopy nurses who performed overall 572 consecutive GI endoscopic procedures during the study period. Results: This is a prospective pilot study performed in the endoscopy unit of two tertiary referral medical centers. We customized a safety checklist that includes the steps to be followed before, during and after the examination. It brings together the whole team participating in the procedure in order to check the key points during the following three vital phases: before the patient falls asleep, before the endoscope is inserted and before the team leaves the examination room. The perception of team communication and teamwork was improved after the introduction of the checklist. The checklist completion rates, identity verification rates of patients by the endoscopist, adequate histological labeling management and explicit recording of follow-up recommendations are some of the parameters that improved post-intervention. Conclusions: Using a checklist and adapting it to local conditions is a high-level recommendation of the Romanian Ministry of Health. In a medical world where safety and quality are essential, a checklist could prevent medical errors, and team time out can ensure high-quality endoscopy, enhance teamwork and offer patients confidence in the medical team.

Pediatric Endoscopy Quality Improvement Network Quality Standards and Indicators for Pediatric Endoscopy Facilities: A Joint NASPGHAN/ESPGHAN Guideline

INTRODUCTION

There is increasing international recognition of the impact of variability in endoscopy facilities on procedural quality and outcomes. There is also growing precedent for assessing the quality of endoscopy facilities at regional and national levels by using standardized rating scales to identify opportunities for improvement.

METHODS

With support from the North American and European Societies of Pediatric Gastroenterology Hepatology and Nutrition (NASPGHAN and ESPGHAN), an international working group of the Pediatric Endoscopy Quality Improvement Network (PEnQuIN) used the methodological strategy of the Appraisal of Guidelines for REsearch and Evaluation (AGREE) II instrument to develop standards and indicators relevant for assessing the quality of facilities where endoscopic care is provided to children. Consensus was reached via an iterative online Delphi process and subsequent in-person meeting. The quality of evidence and strength of recommendations were rated according to the GRADE (Grading of Recommendation Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach.

RESULTS

The PEnQuIN working group achieved consensus on 27 standards for facilities supporting pediatric endoscopy, as well 10 indicators that can be used to identify high-quality endoscopic care in children. These standards were subcategorized into three subdomains: Quality of Clinical Operations (15 standards, 5 indicators); Patient and Caregiver Experience (9 standards, 5 indicators); and Workforce (3 standards).

DISCUSSION

The rigorous PEnQuIN process successfully yielded standards and indicators that can be used to universally guide and measure high-quality facilities for procedures around the world where endoscopy is performed in children. It also underscores the current paucity of evidence for pediatric endoscopic care processes, and the need for research into this clinical area.

'Case of the month': a novel way to learn from endoscopy-related patient safety incidents

Patient safety incidents (PSIs) are unintended or unexpected incidents which can or do lead to patient harm. The Joint Advisory Group on Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (JAG) acknowledges that PSIs should be reviewed by endoscopy services and learning shared among staff. It is recognised that more could be done to promote shared learning as outlined by the JAG 'Improving Safety and Reducing Error in Endoscopy' strategy. The 'Case of the month' series aims to provide a broad selection of cases and subsequent learning that can be shared among services and their workforce. This review focuses on five case vignettes that highlight a variety of PSIs in endoscopy. A structured approach, based on incident analysis methodology, is applied to each case to categorise PSIs and develop learning points. Learning is directed toward the individual, team and healthcare organisation. A selection of methods to disseminate learning at local, regional and national levels are also described.

Improving patient safety in the endoscopy unit: utilization of remote video auditing to improve time-out compliance

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Patient and procedure verification, or the time-out process (TOP), is considered one of the most vital components of patient safety. It has long been a focus of intervention in the surgical community and recently was incorporated into the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy guidelines for safety in the GI endoscopy unit. The TOP has had limited attention in the endoscopy literature but remains an area for improvement in clinical endoscopy practice. The aim of this study was to identify barriers and improve TOP compliance rates in our endoscopy unit using remote video auditing (RVA).

METHODS

This was a single-center, prospective, pilot initiative in an endoscopy unit at a tertiary care academic medical center. Video cameras with offsite monitoring were installed in each procedure room in our endoscopy suite in November 2016. Baseline TOP compliance rates were audited with RVA over a 2-month period. A multidisciplinary quality improvement team reviewed the data, identified barriers to the TOP, and implemented actionable items in January 2017. TOP compliance rates were again monitored via RVA, and data were collected through October 2018. Pre- and postintervention TOP compliance rates were compared.

RESULTS

Over the baseline period, 692 procedures were audited and TOP compliance documented. Baseline TOP compliance rate was 69.6%. Identifiable barriers to TOP compliance included a lack of designated team member to lead TOP, inconsistent documentation of TOP, irrelevant safety checklist items not applicable to endoscopic procedures, and lack of patient safety culture. Actionable items implemented in response to these barriers included designation of a TOP leader, visual indication of initiation of TOP, creation of a concise endoscopy-specific safety checklist, and formal notification/education of the entire endoscopy team. Postintervention TOP compliance rates were then audited from January 2017 to October 2018 and included 12,008 procedures. The mean TOP compliance rate significantly improved from baseline (95.3% vs 69.6%; 95% confidence interval, 22.4-29.3; P < .0001). Additionally, the improvement was maintained throughout the entire postintervention observation period.

CONCLUSIONS

TOP compliance rates significantly improved in our endoscopy unit through the use of RVA and implementation of 4 actionable items. Future studies should evaluate the reproducibility of this method in other endoscopy units.

Review article: Current literature on surgical checklists and handoff tools and application for orthopaedic surgery

Despite the adaptation of checklists for specific surgeries being developed, there remains a lack of an available standard for an orthopaedic-specific checklist. Benefits of implementing checklists include cost-effectiveness as well as the ability to significantly reduce both mortality and complication rates in a variety of healthcare settings. The aim of this review is to analyze the evidence surrounding the effectiveness of checklists as well as recommend for the development of a standard checklist for specific orthopaedic surgeries such as total joint arthroplasty (TJA).

Person-centered endoscopy safety checklist: Development, implementation, and evaluation

AIM

To describe the development and implementation of a person-centered endoscopy safety checklist and to evaluate the effects of a “checklist intervention”.

METHODS

The checklist, based on previously published safety checklists, was developed and locally adapted, taking patient safety aspects into consideration and using a person-centered approach. This novel checklist was introduced to the staff of an endoscopy unit at a Stockholm University Hospital during half-day seminars and team training sessions. Structured observations of the endoscopy team’s performance were conducted before and after the introduction of the checklist. In addition, questionnaires focusing on patient participation, collaboration climate, and patient safety issues were collected from patients and staff.

RESULTS

A person-centered safety checklist was developed and introduced by a multi-professional group in the endoscopy unit. A statistically significant increase in accurate patient identity verification by the physicians was noted (from 0% at baseline to 87% after 10 mo, P < 0.001), and remained high among nurses (93% at baseline vs 96% after 10 mo, P = nonsignificant). Observations indicated that the professional staff made frequent attempts to use the checklist, but compliance was suboptimal: All items in the observed nurse-led “summaries” were included in 56% of these interactions, and physicians participated by directly facing the patient in 50% of the interactions. On the questionnaires administered to the staff, items regarding collaboration and the importance of patient participation were rated more highly after the introduction of the checklist, but this did not result in statistical significance (P = 0.07/P = 0.08). The patients rated almost all items as very high both before and after the introduction of the checklist; hence, no statistical difference was noted.

CONCLUSION

The intervention led to increased patient identity verification by physicians - a patient safety improvement. Clear evidence of enhanced person-centeredness or team work was not found.

Quality standards in upper gastrointestinal endoscopy: a position statement of the British Society of Gastroenterology (BSG) and Association of Upper Gastrointestinal Surgeons of Great Britain and Ireland (AUGIS)

This document represents the first position statement produced by the British Society of Gastroenterology and Association of Upper Gastrointestinal Surgeons of Great Britain and Ireland, setting out the minimum expected standards in diagnostic upper gastrointestinal endoscopy. The need for this statement has arisen from the recognition that while technical competence can be rapidly acquired, in practice the performance of a high-quality examination is variable, with an unacceptably high rate of failure to diagnose cancer at endoscopy. The importance of detecting early neoplasia has taken on greater significance in this era of minimally invasive, organ-preserving endoscopic therapy. In this position statement we describe 38 recommendations to improve diagnostic endoscopy quality. Our goal is to emphasise practices that encourage mucosal inspection and lesion recognition, with the aim of optimising the early diagnosis of upper gastrointestinal disease and improving patient outcomes.

Simulation-Based Training of Non-Technical Skills in Colonoscopy: Protocol for a Randomized Controlled Trial

BACKGROUND

Non-technical skills (NTS), such as communication and professionalism, contribute to the safe and effective completion of procedures. NTS training has previously been shown to improve surgical performance. Moreover, increases in NTS have been associated with improved clinical endoscopic performance. Despite this evidence, NTS training has not been tested as an intervention in endoscopy.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study is to evaluate the effectiveness of a simulation-based training (SBT) curriculum of NTS on novice endoscopists' performance of clinical colonoscopy.

METHODS

Novice endoscopists were randomized to 2 groups. The control group received 4 hours of interactive didactic sessions on colonoscopy theory and 6 hours of SBT. Hours 5 and 6 of the SBT were integrated scenarios, wherein participants interacted with a standardized patient and nurse, while performing a colonoscopy on the virtual reality (VR) simulator. The NTS (intervention) group received the same teaching sessions but the last hour was focused on NTS teaching. The NTS group also reviewed a checklist of tasks relevant to NTS concepts prior to each integrated scenario case and was provided with dedicated feedback on their NTS performance during the integrated scenario practice. All participants were assessed at baseline, immediately after training, and 4 to 6 weeks post-training. The primary outcome measure is colonoscopy-specific performance in the clinical setting.

RESULTS

In total, 42 novice endoscopists completed the study. Data collection and analysis is ongoing. We anticipate completion of all assessments by August 2017. Data analysis, manuscript writing, and subsequent submission for publication is expected to be completed by December 2017.

CONCLUSIONS

Results from this study may inform the implementation of NTS training into postgraduate gastrointestinal curricula. NTS curricula may improve attitudes towards patient safety and self-reflection among trainees. Moreover, enhanced NTS may lead to superior clinical performance and outcomes in colonoscopy.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Clinicaltrial.gov NCT02877420; https://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02877420 (Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/6rw94ubXX NCT02877420).