Search

The European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy and United European Gastroenterology present a short list of key performance measures for endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) and endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). We recommend that endoscopy services across Europe adopt the following seven key and one minor performance measures for EUS and ERCP, for measurement and evaluation in daily practice at center and endoscopist level: 1 Adequate antibiotic prophylaxis before ERCP (key performance measure, at least 90 %); 2 Antibiotic prophylaxis before EUS-guided puncture of cystic lesions (key performance measure, at least 95 %); 3 Bile duct cannulation rate (key performance measure, at least 90 %); 4 Tissue sampling during EUS (key performance measure, at least 85 %); 5 Appropriate stent placement in patients with biliary obstruction below the hilum (key performance measure, at least 95 %); 6 Bile duct stone extraction (key performance measure, at least 90 %); 7 Post-ERCP pancreatitis (key performance measure, less than 10 %). 8 Adequate documentation of EUS landmarks (minor performance measure, at least 90 %).This present list of quality performance measures for ERCP and EUS recommended by ESGE should not be considered to be exhaustive: it might be extended in future to address further clinical and scientific issues.

To develop standards for high quality in gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy, the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) has established the ESGE Quality Improvement Committee. A prerequisite for quality assurance and improvement for all GI endoscopy procedures is state-of-the-art integrated digital reporting systems for standardized documentation of the procedures. The current paper describes the ESGE's viewpoints on the requirements for high-quality endoscopy reporting systems in GI endoscopy. Recommendations 1 Endoscopy reporting systems must be electronic. 2 Endoscopy reporting systems should be integrated into hospitals' patient record systems. 3 Endoscopy reporting systems should include patient identifiers to facilitate data linkage to other data sources. 4 Endoscopy reporting systems shall restrict the use of free-text entry to a minimum, and be based mainly on structured data entry. 5 Separate entry of data for quality or research purposes is discouraged. Automatic data transfer for quality and research purposes must be facilitated. 6 Double entry of data by the endoscopist or associate personnel is discouraged. Available data from outside sources (administrative or medical) must be made available automatically. 7 Endoscopy reporting systems shall facilitate the inclusion of information on histopathology of detected lesions, patient satisfaction, adverse events, and surveillance recommendations. 8 Endoscopy reporting systems must facilitate easy data retrieval at any time in a universally compatible format. 9 Endoscopy reporting systems must include data fields for key performance indicators as defined by quality improvement committees. 10 Endoscopy reporting systems must facilitate changes in indicators and data entry fields as required by professional organizations.