RESUMEN

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.3389/fmed.2022.868449.].

RESUMEN

Background: The quality of gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy has been recently identified as a major priority being associated with many outcomes and patient's experience. Objective: To assess adherence of endoscopists to the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) quality performance measures for upper and lower GI endoscopy in Italy. Methods: All endoscopist members of the Italian Society of Digestive Endoscopy (SIED) were invited from October 2018 to December 2018 to participate to a self-administered questionnaire-based survey. The questionnaire included questions on demographics and professional characteristics, and the recent ESGE quality performance measures for upper and lower GI endoscopy. Results: A total of 392 endoscopists participated in the study. Only a minority (18.2%) of participants recorded the duration of esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) and 51% provided accurate photo documentation in the minimum standard of 90% of cases. Almost all endoscopists correctly used Prague and Los Angeles classifications (87.8% and 98.2%, respectively), as well as Seattle and Management of precancerous conditions and lesions in the stomach (MAPS) biopsy protocols (86.5% and 91.4%, respectively). However, only 52.8% of participants monitored complications after therapeutic EGD, and 40.8% recorded patients with a diagnosis of Barrett's esophagus (BE). With regard to colonoscopy, almost all endoscopists (93.9%) used the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale for measuring bowel preparation quality and reported a cecal intubation rate ≥90%. However, about a quarter (26.2%) of participants reported an adenoma detection rate of <25%, only 52.8% applied an appropriate polypectomy technique, 48% monitored complications after the procedure, and 12.4% measured patient's experience. Conclusion: The adherence of endoscopists to ESGE performance measures for GI endoscopy is sub-optimal in Italy. There is a need to disseminate and implement performance measures and endorse educational and scientific interventions on the quality of endoscopy.

RESUMEN

Background and study aims Endoscope reprocessing has been associated with a variable failure rate. Our aim was to present an overview on current practices for reprocessing in Italian facilities and discuss the principle critical points. Methods In 2014 the Italian Society for Digestive Diseases implemented an accreditation program in collaboration with an independent organization for certification and with the Italian Association for Endoscopy Technical Operators. During a 1-day site visit of the endoscopy center, two endoscopists, one nurse, and the representative of the certification body evaluated the endoscope reprocessing. Results As of July 1, 2020, 28 endoscopy centers had been accredited. Ten centers are completing the measures to correct deficiencies found at the visit. Three centers withdrew from the program. The accreditation program has found variations between the various centers, confirming the poor compliance with guidelines. Major deviations from the standards, established by the model before the site visit according to national and international guidelines, concerned instrument cleaning (44.7 % of the centers), instrument storage (23.7 %), and microbiological tests (31.6 %). Conclusions Our overview demonstrated the lack of many reprocessing phases, which are important to prevent endoscopy-associated infections. Accreditation can achieve a transformation in quality and safety of reprocessing with the Italian centrally-led approach.

RESUMEN

INTRODUCTION: Accreditation is one method of assuring quality, but the evidence base in support of service accreditation is mixed. More recent experiences indicate that accreditation may accelerate improvements. AREAS COVERED: Our aim is focused on endoscopy service accreditation and we conducted a literature search using Medline (via Pubmed) and the Cochrane Center Register of Controlled Trials up to January 2020. EXPERT OPINION: Worldwide numerous centers fail to meet important quality indicators as suggested by international guidelines. Accreditation can provide means for detecting many problems and correcting them by implementing agreed standards.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: The use of the Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) score to prioritize patients on liver waiting lists must take the bias of different laboratories into account. METHODS: We evaluated the outcome of 418 patients listed during 1 year whose MELD score was computed by two laboratories (lab 1 and lab 2). The two labs had different normality ranges for bilirubin (maximal normal value [Vmax]: 1.1 for lab 1 and 1.2 for lab 2) and creatinine (Vmax: 1.2 for lab 1 and 1.4 for lab 2). The outcome during the waiting time was evaluated by considering the liver transplantations and the dropouts, which included deaths on the list, tumor progression, and patients who were too sick. RESULTS: Although the clinical features of patients were similar between the two laboratories, 36 (13.1%) out of 275 were dropped from the list in lab 1, compared to 5 (3.5%) out of 143 in lab 2 (P<0.01). The differences were mainly due to the deaths on the list (8% lab 1 vs. 2.1% lab 2, P<0.05). The competing risk analysis confirmed the different risk of dropout between the two labs independently of the MELD score, blood group, and preoperative diagnosis. The bias on MELD calculation was considered and bilirubin and creatinine values were "normalized" to Vmax of lab 1 (corrected value=measured value x Vmax lab 1/Vmax lab 2). By comparing receiver operating characteristic curves, the ability of MELD to predict the 6-month dropouts significantly increased from an area under the curve of 0.703 to 0.716 after "normalization" (P<0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Normalization of MELD is a correct and good compromise to avoid systematic bias due to different laboratory methods.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

To investigate the relationship between plasma atrial natriuretic factor (ANF) levels, impaired myocardial contractility and pain intensity in acute myocardial infarction (AMI) we introduced a procedure estimating the pain component not influenced by the individual emotional reaction to stress, i.e., the original pain sensation. We deduced this pain component during AMI by correcting the personal report of AMI pain, quantified on a VAS, with the emotional reaction of each patient estimated by using a custom-built instrument which applies electrical stimuli of different intensities. Twenty-five patients with uncomplicated AMI were studied. According to plasma ANF levels and AMI pain values reported on the VAS, patients were categorized into 2 groups: pain and no-pain. Plasma ANF levels were significantly lower in pain (35.9 +/- 2.5 pg/ml) than in no-pain patients (70.8 +/- 3.3 pg/ml), whereas the ejection fraction (EF) was significantly higher in pain (49.6 +/- 1.7%) than in no-pain patients (29.3 +/- 1.9%). Within each group, a negative correlation was found between ANF and EF; the corresponding regression lines did not differ significantly in their slopes or intercepts, suggesting that AMI pain does not affect ANF release. The significant negative correlation between original pain sensation and EF found in pain patients indicates that this pain component may be useful to gauge the severity of impaired myocardial contractility during AMI. Moreover, the much higher plasma ANF levels observed in no-pain patients suggest that ANF may be involved in preventing AMI pain.

Asunto(s)