GI endoscopic reprocessing practices in the United States

GI endoscopic reprocessing: maintaining public confidence in the face of decreasing reimbursements

Winning the Colonoscopy Revaluation Delay

The Road Ahead

How To Maximize Trainee Education During the Coronavirus Disease-2019 Pandemic: Perspectives From Around the World

Multisociety guideline on reprocessing flexible GI endoscopes: 2016 update

Competence in gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy correlates with the number of procedures performed by the endoscopist. For each GI endoscopic procedure, the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE) guidelines recommend minimum numbers needed to assess competence. We conducted an anonymous mail survey to determine whether GI endoscopy centers in the United States follow ASGE or other guidelines for granting and renewing endoscopic privileges. Completed surveys were received from 479 respondents in 46 states, Puerto Rico, and the District of Columbia. Most respondents were either the physician director (24%) or nurse manager (57%) of the endoscopy center. Most centers have more than 5 endoscopists (62%), and gastroenterologists performed procedures in the majority of the centers (89%). For initial endoscopic credentialing, few centers require a minimum number of procedures and only 10% meet ASGE criteria. To maintain credentials, less than one third require a minimum number and only 2% require more than 25 procedures/year. Although three fourths report periodic review of procedures, less than 5% review them more frequently than every 6 months. Only 20% of centers had ever denied endoscopic privileges (poor skills [80%], no references [27%], poor communication [7%], and excess complications [6%]) for which half faced litigation. Most GI endoscopy centers responding to this survey have no minimum standards for determining endoscopic competence and may credential GI endoscopists with suboptimal training. Only 10% adhere to ASGE guidelines. Moreover, there is lack of uniformity to application of these guidelines, and few centers use resulting data to deny or renew credentials. To guarantee high-quality endoscopic practice, more stringent, universal credentialing standards are required.

GI multisociety strategic plan on environmental sustainability.

Quality of care is the degree to which health services for individuals and populations increase the likelihood of desired health outcomes and are consistent with current professional knowledge (1). The American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE), the American College of Gastroenterology (ACG), and the American Gastroenterological Association (AGA) have continually promoted the ideal that all patients have access to high-quality GI endoscopy services. A high-quality endoscopy is an examination in which patients receive an indicated procedure, correct and relevant diagnoses are recognized or excluded, any therapy provided is appropriate, and all steps that minimize risk have been taken.

Avoidance of PEG 3350 in patients with CHF, cirrhosis, and chronic kidney disease

The Gastroenterology Core Curriculum, Third Edition

Artificial Intelligence–Aided Colonoscopy for Characterizing and Detecting Colorectal Polyps: Required, Nice to Have, or Overhyped?

Reply

ASGE guideline on screening for pancreatic cancer in individuals with genetic susceptibility: summary and recommendations

Background/Aim:Open access endoscopy (OAE) decreases the waiting time for patients and clinical burden to gastroenterologist; however, the appropriateness of referrals for endoscopy and thus the diagnostic yield of these endoscopies has become an important issue. The aim of this study was to determine the appropriateness of upper gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy requests in an OAE system.Patients and Methods:A retrospective chart review of all consecutive patients who underwent an upper gastroscopy in the year 2008 was performed and was defined as appropriate or inappropriate according to the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE) guidelines. Endoscopic findings were recorded and classified as positive or negative. Referrals were categorized as being from a gastroenterologist, internist, surgeon, primary care physicians or others, and on an inpatient or out-patient basis.Results:A total of 505 consecutive patients were included. The mean age was 45.3 (standard deviation 18.1), 259 (51%) of them were males. 31% of the referrals were thought to be inappropriate. Referrals from primary care physicians were inappropriate in 47% of patients while only 19.5% of gastroenterologists referrals were considered inappropriate. Nearly, 37.8% of the out-patient referrals were inappropriate compared to only 7.8% for inpatients. Abnormal findings were found in 78.5% and 78% of patients referred by gastroenterologists and surgeons respectively while in those referred by primary care physicians it was (49.7%). Inpatients referred for endoscopy had abnormal findings in (81.7%) while in out-patients it was (66.6%). The most common appropriate indications in order of frequency were “upper abdominal distress that persisted despite an appropriate trial of therapy” (78.9%), “persistent vomiting of unknown cause” (19.2%), upper GI bleeding or unexplained iron deficiency anemia (7.6%). The sensitivity and specificity of the ASGE guidelines in our study population was 70.3% and 35% respectively.Conclusion:A large proportion of patients referred for endoscopy through our open-access endoscopy unit are considered inappropriate, with significant differences among specialties. These results suggest that if proper education of practitioners was implemented, a better utilization would be expected.

What Will Be Needed for the New Gastroenterology Fellowship Match to Succeed?