Quality of Capsule Endoscopy Reporting in Patients Referred for Double Balloon Enteroscopy.

IF 1.4 Q4 GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY Gastroenterology Research Pub Date : 2023-04-01 DOI:10.14740/gr1596
Joshua Lee, Jonathan Reichstein, Iris Vance, Daniel Wild
{"title":"Quality of Capsule Endoscopy Reporting in Patients Referred for Double Balloon Enteroscopy.","authors":"Joshua Lee,&nbsp;Jonathan Reichstein,&nbsp;Iris Vance,&nbsp;Daniel Wild","doi":"10.14740/gr1596","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Abnormal video capsule endoscopy (VCE) findings often require intervention with double balloon enteroscopy (DBE). Accurate VCE reporting is important for procedural planning. In 2017 the American Gastroenterological Association (AGA) published a guideline that included recommended elements for VCE reporting. The aim of this study was to examine adherence to the AGA reporting guidelines for VCE.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The medical records of all patients who underwent DBE at a tertiary academic center between February 1, 2018, and July 1, 2019, were retrospectively reviewed to identify the VCE report that prompted DBE. Data were collected on the presence of each reporting element recommended by the AGA. Differences in reporting between academic and private practices were compared.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 129 VCE reports were reviewed (84 private practice and 45 academic practice). Reports consistently included indication, date, endoscopist, findings, diagnosis, and management recommendations. Timing of anatomic landmarks and abnormalities were included in only 87.6% of reports and preparation quality in only 26.2%. Reports from private practice groups were significantly more likely to include the type of capsule (P < 0.001). VCE reports from academic centers were more likely to include adverse outcomes (P < 0.001), pertinent negatives (P = 0.0015), extent of exam (P = 0.009), previous investigations (P = 0.045), medications (P < 0.001), and document communication to patient/referring physician (P = 0.001).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Most VCE reports in both private and academic settings included the important elements recommended by the AGA; however only 87% listed the times of landmarks and abnormal findings, which are crucial in determining the type and direction of approach for subsequent interventions. It is unclear whether the quality of VCE reporting influences the outcome of subsequent DBE.</p>","PeriodicalId":12461,"journal":{"name":"Gastroenterology Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2023-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/6d/93/gr-16-092.PMC10181337.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Gastroenterology Research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.14740/gr1596","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Abnormal video capsule endoscopy (VCE) findings often require intervention with double balloon enteroscopy (DBE). Accurate VCE reporting is important for procedural planning. In 2017 the American Gastroenterological Association (AGA) published a guideline that included recommended elements for VCE reporting. The aim of this study was to examine adherence to the AGA reporting guidelines for VCE.

Methods: The medical records of all patients who underwent DBE at a tertiary academic center between February 1, 2018, and July 1, 2019, were retrospectively reviewed to identify the VCE report that prompted DBE. Data were collected on the presence of each reporting element recommended by the AGA. Differences in reporting between academic and private practices were compared.

Results: A total of 129 VCE reports were reviewed (84 private practice and 45 academic practice). Reports consistently included indication, date, endoscopist, findings, diagnosis, and management recommendations. Timing of anatomic landmarks and abnormalities were included in only 87.6% of reports and preparation quality in only 26.2%. Reports from private practice groups were significantly more likely to include the type of capsule (P < 0.001). VCE reports from academic centers were more likely to include adverse outcomes (P < 0.001), pertinent negatives (P = 0.0015), extent of exam (P = 0.009), previous investigations (P = 0.045), medications (P < 0.001), and document communication to patient/referring physician (P = 0.001).

Conclusions: Most VCE reports in both private and academic settings included the important elements recommended by the AGA; however only 87% listed the times of landmarks and abnormal findings, which are crucial in determining the type and direction of approach for subsequent interventions. It is unclear whether the quality of VCE reporting influences the outcome of subsequent DBE.

Abstract Image

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
双气囊肠镜检查患者胶囊内镜检查质量报告。
背景:视频胶囊内窥镜(VCE)检查结果异常通常需要双气囊内窥镜(DBE)干预。准确的VCE报告对于程序规划非常重要。2017年,美国胃肠病学协会(AGA)发布了一份指南,其中包括VCE报告的推荐元素。本研究的目的是检查对VCE的AGA报告指南的遵守情况。方法:回顾性分析2018年2月1日至2019年7月1日在某高等教育中心接受DBE治疗的所有患者的医疗记录,以确定引发DBE的VCE报告。收集了关于总干事建议的每个报告要素的存在情况的数据。比较了学术和私人执业报告的差异。结果:共审阅VCE报告129份(私人执业84份,学术执业45份)。报告一致包括适应症、日期、内窥镜医师、结果、诊断和管理建议。只有87.6%的报告包括解剖标志和异常的时间,只有26.2%的报告包括准备质量。来自私人诊所组的报告更有可能包括胶囊的类型(P < 0.001)。来自学术中心的VCE报告更可能包括不良结局(P < 0.001)、相关阴性结果(P = 0.0015)、检查范围(P = 0.009)、既往调查(P = 0.045)、药物(P < 0.001)以及与患者/转诊医生的文件沟通(P = 0.001)。结论:在私人和学术环境中,大多数VCE报告都包含了AGA建议的重要元素;然而,只有87%的人列出了里程碑和异常发现的时间,这对于确定后续干预的方法类型和方向至关重要。目前尚不清楚VCE报告的质量是否会影响后续DBE的结果。
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
Gastroenterology Research
Gastroenterology Research GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY-
自引率
0.00%
发文量
35
期刊最新文献
Adult-Onset Autoimmune Enteropathy Mimicking Disaccharidase Deficiency. Effect of Pemafibrate on the Lipid Profile, Liver Function, and Liver Fibrosis Among Patients With Metabolic Dysfunction-Associated Steatotic Liver Disease. Extraction Basket Entangled in Surgical Sutures in Common Bile Duct Forty-Five Years After Hepatobiliary Surgery: A Bizarre Adverse Event of Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography. Pre-Cut Papillotomy Versus Endoscopic Ultrasound-Rendezvous for Difficult Biliary Cannulation: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Clinical Efficacy of Transcatheter Arterial Chemoembolization Combined With Percutaneous Microwave Coagulation Therapy for Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma.
×
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