A78 BILIARY STENT USE IN ERCP: A QUALITY ASSURANCE STUDY ASSESSING ADHERENCE TO CLINICAL GUIDELINES AND COST OUTCOMES

A. Decanini, S. I. S. Alhaidari, I. Alzahrani, M. Alhanaee, M. Mohamed, S. Zepeda-Gómez, P. Mathura, J. Zhang, G. Sandha
{"title":"A78 BILIARY STENT USE IN ERCP: A QUALITY ASSURANCE STUDY ASSESSING ADHERENCE TO CLINICAL GUIDELINES AND COST OUTCOMES","authors":"A. Decanini, S. I. S. Alhaidari, I. Alzahrani, M. Alhanaee, M. Mohamed, S. Zepeda-Gómez, P. Mathura, J. Zhang, G. Sandha","doi":"10.1093/jcag/gwac036.078","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Background A perceived increase in the use of biliary stents during endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) was observed by our nursing team leader and brought to the attention of the Director of Endoscopy. Purpose To assess a) biliary stent utilization during ERCP, b) the adherence for stent placement based on published guidelines, and c) the associated cost. Method A chart review of all consecutive patients that underwent ERCP for one year (January 2020 to 2021) at the University of Alberta Hospital (UAH) was performed. The need for biliary stent placement was assessed independently by two blinded reviewers and compared with published guidelines. Costs were calculated using Alberta Health Services fee codes. Result(s) A total of 598 patients (316 F) with mean age of 60±19 years (range 3-99 years) underwent 842 ERCPs. Clinical indications for the initial ERCP were common bile duct (CBD) stones (376, 63%), malignant stricture (84, 14%), benign stricture (49, 8%), bile leak (27, 5%), stent removal (15, 3%), and others (47, 8%). Of the 244 patients that had a follow-up ERCP, the most common indications were stent removal (126, 52%), stent replacement (61, 25%), stent placement (28, 11%), and stone extraction (8, 3%). A total of 296 biliary stents were inserted, of which 223 stents (114 plastic, 109 metal) were inserted during the first ERCP (223/598, 37%) and 73 stents (43 plastic, 30 metal) during follow-up ERCP (73/244, 30%). Of the 296 stents, 79 (27%) were inserted for indications not in accordance with published guidelines (63/223 initial ERCP, and 16/73 follow-up ERCP, kappa=0.62). Most of these were placed in CBD stone cases (61/63 initial ERCP, 6/16 follow-up ERCP). In the subgroup of 376 patients with CBD stones, 61 (16%) underwent stent placement not in accordance with published guidelines. The added cost of such stent insertions and follow-up ERCPs for stent removal was $130,000. Conclusion(s) Stent insertion not in accordance with published guidelines was identified in some patients with CBD stones presenting for ERCP. To reduce unnecessary follow-up procedures and healthcare resource utilization, ERCP stent insertion education based on published guidelines, as well as regular practice audit and feedback are required. Please acknowledge all funding agencies by checking the applicable boxes below None Disclosure of Interest None Declared","PeriodicalId":17263,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the Canadian Association of Gastroenterology","volume":"6 1","pages":"42 - 43"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of the Canadian Association of Gastroenterology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jcag/gwac036.078","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Abstract Background A perceived increase in the use of biliary stents during endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) was observed by our nursing team leader and brought to the attention of the Director of Endoscopy. Purpose To assess a) biliary stent utilization during ERCP, b) the adherence for stent placement based on published guidelines, and c) the associated cost. Method A chart review of all consecutive patients that underwent ERCP for one year (January 2020 to 2021) at the University of Alberta Hospital (UAH) was performed. The need for biliary stent placement was assessed independently by two blinded reviewers and compared with published guidelines. Costs were calculated using Alberta Health Services fee codes. Result(s) A total of 598 patients (316 F) with mean age of 60±19 years (range 3-99 years) underwent 842 ERCPs. Clinical indications for the initial ERCP were common bile duct (CBD) stones (376, 63%), malignant stricture (84, 14%), benign stricture (49, 8%), bile leak (27, 5%), stent removal (15, 3%), and others (47, 8%). Of the 244 patients that had a follow-up ERCP, the most common indications were stent removal (126, 52%), stent replacement (61, 25%), stent placement (28, 11%), and stone extraction (8, 3%). A total of 296 biliary stents were inserted, of which 223 stents (114 plastic, 109 metal) were inserted during the first ERCP (223/598, 37%) and 73 stents (43 plastic, 30 metal) during follow-up ERCP (73/244, 30%). Of the 296 stents, 79 (27%) were inserted for indications not in accordance with published guidelines (63/223 initial ERCP, and 16/73 follow-up ERCP, kappa=0.62). Most of these were placed in CBD stone cases (61/63 initial ERCP, 6/16 follow-up ERCP). In the subgroup of 376 patients with CBD stones, 61 (16%) underwent stent placement not in accordance with published guidelines. The added cost of such stent insertions and follow-up ERCPs for stent removal was $130,000. Conclusion(s) Stent insertion not in accordance with published guidelines was identified in some patients with CBD stones presenting for ERCP. To reduce unnecessary follow-up procedures and healthcare resource utilization, ERCP stent insertion education based on published guidelines, as well as regular practice audit and feedback are required. Please acknowledge all funding agencies by checking the applicable boxes below None Disclosure of Interest None Declared
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
胆道支架在ercp中的应用:一项质量保证研究,评估临床指南的依从性和成本结果
摘要背景我们的护理团队负责人观察到内镜逆行胰胆管造影术(ERCP)中胆道支架的使用增加,并引起了内镜主任的注意。目的评估a)ERCP期间胆道支架的使用情况,b)根据已发布的指南进行支架置入的依从性,以及c)相关成本。方法对在阿尔伯塔大学医院(UAH)接受ERCP一年(2020年1月至2021年)的所有连续患者进行图表回顾。两位盲法评审员对胆道支架置入的必要性进行了独立评估,并与已发表的指南进行了比较。费用使用艾伯塔省卫生服务费用代码计算。结果共有598名患者(316F)接受了842例ERCP检查,平均年龄60±19岁(3-99岁)。首次ERCP的临床指征为胆总管结石(376,63%)、恶性狭窄(84,14%)、良性狭窄(49,8%)、胆汁渗漏(27,5%)、支架移除(15,3%)和其他(47,8%)。在244名接受ERCP随访的患者中,最常见的适应症是支架移除(12652%)、支架更换(61.25%)、支架置入(2811%)和结石取出(8.3%)。共插入296个胆道支架,其中223个支架(114个塑料支架,109个金属支架)在第一次ERCP期间插入(223/598,37%),73个支架(43个塑料支架、30个金属支架,在后续ERCP期间植入(73/244,30%)。296个支架中,79个(27%)因不符合已公布指南的适应症而植入(63/223个初次ERCP,16/73个随访ERCP,kappa=0.62)。其中大多数支架放置在CBD结石病例中(61/63个首次ERCP,6/16个随访ERCP)。在376名CBD结石患者的亚组中,61名(16%)患者未按照公布的指南进行支架置入。这种支架插入和支架移除的后续ERCP的额外成本为130000美元。结论在一些接受ERCP检查的CBD结石患者中发现支架置入不符合已发表的指南。为了减少不必要的随访程序和医疗资源利用,需要根据已发布的指南进行ERCP支架置入教育,以及定期的实践审计和反馈。请勾选以下适用框确认所有资助机构无利益披露无声明
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
296
审稿时长
10 weeks
期刊最新文献
Response from the Canadian Children Inflammatory Bowel Disease Network to the US Food and Drug Administration Draft Guidance for Industry on pediatric inflammatory bowel disease: developing drugs for treatment. A Year in Review: JCAG's Inaugural Editorial Fellowship. Clinical features, management, and complications of paediatric button battery ingestions in Canada: an active surveillance study using surveys of Canadian paediatricians and paediatric subspecialists. Canadian female perspectives on training in the boys club: advanced therapeutic endoscopy. Acceptability, feasibility, and impact of the MyGut digital health platform in the monitoring and management of inflammatory bowel disease.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1