Evidence-Based Medicine
Copyright ©The Author(s) 2016. Published by Baishideng Publishing Group Inc. All rights reserved.
World J Gastrointest Endosc. Apr 25, 2016; 8(8): 362-367
Published online Apr 25, 2016. doi: 10.4253/wjge.v8.i8.362
Impact of endoscopic ultrasound quality assessment on improving endoscopic ultrasound reports and procedures
Ryan Schwab, Eugene Pahk, Jesse Lachter
Ryan Schwab, Jesse Lachter, Department of Gastroenterology, Rambam Healthcare Campus, Haifa 35000, Israel
Eugene Pahk, Department of Gastroenterology, Technion Medical School, Haifa 35000, Israel
Author contributions: Schwab R analyzed data and performed research; Pahk E wrote the manuscript and edited; Lachter J designed the research and edited.
Conflict-of-interest statement: The authors report no conflict of interest or sources of funding in this work.
Data sharing statement: No additional data are available.
Open-Access: This article is an open-access article which was selected by an in-house editor and fully peer-reviewed by external reviewers. It is distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/
Correspondence to: Eugene Pahk, BS, Department of Gastroenterology, Technion Medical School, 21 Sharl Luts No.6, Haifa 35000, Israel. eugenepahk@gmail.com
Telephone: +972-58-5055335 Fax: +972-4-8295326
Received: November 29, 2015
Peer-review started: November 30, 2015
First decision: December 22, 2015
Revised: December 30, 2015
Accepted: February 23, 2016
Article in press: February 24, 2016
Published online: April 25, 2016

AIM: To evaluate the impact of endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) quality assessment on EUS procedures by comparing the most recent 2013-2014 local EUS procedural reports against relevant corresponding data from a 2009 survey of EUS using standardized quality indicators (QIs).

METHODS: Per EUS exam, 27 QIs were assessed individually and by grouping pre-, intra-, and post-procedural parameters. The recorded QI frequencies from 200 reports (2013-2014) were compared to corresponding data of 100 reports from the quality control study of EUS in 2009. Data for QIs added after 2009 to professional guidelines (added after 2010) were also tabulated.

RESULTS: Significant differences (P-value < 0.05) were found for 13 of 20 of the relevant QIs examined. 4 of 5 pre-procedural QIs, 6 of 10 intra-procedural QIs, and 3 of 5 post-procedural QIs all demonstrated significant upgrading with a P-value < 0.05.

CONCLUSION: Significant improvements were demonstrated in QI adherence and thus EUS reporting and delivery quality when the 2013-2014 reports were compared to 2009 results. QI implementation facilitates effective high-quality EUS exams by ensuring comprehensive documentation while limiting error.

Keywords: Endoscopic ultrasound, Improvement, Fine needle sspiration, Quality indicators

Core tip: Consistent implementation of these endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) quality indicators by endosonographers facilitates effective high-quality EUS procedures by ensuring comprehensive procedural documentation while also limiting error.