Cargando…
Quality of reporting in endoscopic ultrasound: Results of an international multicenter survey (the QUOREUS study)
Background and study aims The endoscopic report has a key role in quality improvement for gastrointestinal endoscopy. High quality standards have been set by the endoscopic societies in this field. Unlike other digestive endoscopy procedures, the quality of reporting in endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Georg Thieme Verlag KG
2021
|
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8216784/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34222644 http://dx.doi.org/10.1055/a-1482-7769 |
_version_ | 1783710487867817984 |
---|---|
author | Fusaroli, Pietro Eloubeidi, Mohamad Calvanese, Claudio Dietrich, Christoph Jenssen, Christian Saftoiu, Adrian De Angelis, Claudio Varadarajulu, Shyam Napoleon, Bertrand Lisotti, Andrea |
author_facet | Fusaroli, Pietro Eloubeidi, Mohamad Calvanese, Claudio Dietrich, Christoph Jenssen, Christian Saftoiu, Adrian De Angelis, Claudio Varadarajulu, Shyam Napoleon, Bertrand Lisotti, Andrea |
author_sort | Fusaroli, Pietro |
collection | PubMed |
description | Background and study aims The endoscopic report has a key role in quality improvement for gastrointestinal endoscopy. High quality standards have been set by the endoscopic societies in this field. Unlike other digestive endoscopy procedures, the quality of reporting in endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) has not been thoroughly evaluated and a reference standard is lacking. Methods We performed an international online survey concerning the attitudes of endosonographers towards EUS reports in order to understand the needs for standardization and quality improvement. Endosonographers from different countries and institutional setting, with varying case volume and experience were invited to take part to complete a structured questionnaire. Results We collected replies from 171 endosonographers. Overall analysis of results according to case volume, experience and working environment of respondents (academic, public hospital, private) are provided. In brief, everyone agreed on the need for standardization of EUS reporting. The use of minimal standard terminology and a structured tree with mandatory items was considered of primary importance. Image documentation was also deemed fundamental in complementing EUS reports both for patient documentation and research purposes. A strong demand for connection and consultation among endosonographers for clinical and training needs was also found. In this respect, a formal expert consultation network was advocated in order to improve the quality of reporting in EUS. Conclusions Our survey showed a strong agreement among endosonographers who expressed the need for a standardization in order to improve the report and, as a consequence, the quality of EUS. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-8216784 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2021 |
publisher | Georg Thieme Verlag KG |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-82167842021-07-01 Quality of reporting in endoscopic ultrasound: Results of an international multicenter survey (the QUOREUS study) Fusaroli, Pietro Eloubeidi, Mohamad Calvanese, Claudio Dietrich, Christoph Jenssen, Christian Saftoiu, Adrian De Angelis, Claudio Varadarajulu, Shyam Napoleon, Bertrand Lisotti, Andrea Endosc Int Open Background and study aims The endoscopic report has a key role in quality improvement for gastrointestinal endoscopy. High quality standards have been set by the endoscopic societies in this field. Unlike other digestive endoscopy procedures, the quality of reporting in endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) has not been thoroughly evaluated and a reference standard is lacking. Methods We performed an international online survey concerning the attitudes of endosonographers towards EUS reports in order to understand the needs for standardization and quality improvement. Endosonographers from different countries and institutional setting, with varying case volume and experience were invited to take part to complete a structured questionnaire. Results We collected replies from 171 endosonographers. Overall analysis of results according to case volume, experience and working environment of respondents (academic, public hospital, private) are provided. In brief, everyone agreed on the need for standardization of EUS reporting. The use of minimal standard terminology and a structured tree with mandatory items was considered of primary importance. Image documentation was also deemed fundamental in complementing EUS reports both for patient documentation and research purposes. A strong demand for connection and consultation among endosonographers for clinical and training needs was also found. In this respect, a formal expert consultation network was advocated in order to improve the quality of reporting in EUS. Conclusions Our survey showed a strong agreement among endosonographers who expressed the need for a standardization in order to improve the report and, as a consequence, the quality of EUS. Georg Thieme Verlag KG 2021-07 2021-06-21 /pmc/articles/PMC8216784/ /pubmed/34222644 http://dx.doi.org/10.1055/a-1482-7769 Text en The Author(s). This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonDerivative-NonCommercial License, permitting copying and reproduction so long as the original work is given appropriate credit. Contents may not be used for commercial purposes, or adapted, remixed, transformed or built upon. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/) https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives License, which permits unrestricted reproduction and distribution, for non-commercial purposes only; and use and reproduction, but not distribution, of adapted material for non-commercial purposes only, provided the original work is properly cited. |
spellingShingle | Fusaroli, Pietro Eloubeidi, Mohamad Calvanese, Claudio Dietrich, Christoph Jenssen, Christian Saftoiu, Adrian De Angelis, Claudio Varadarajulu, Shyam Napoleon, Bertrand Lisotti, Andrea Quality of reporting in endoscopic ultrasound: Results of an international multicenter survey (the QUOREUS study) |
title | Quality of reporting in endoscopic ultrasound: Results of an international multicenter survey (the QUOREUS study) |
title_full | Quality of reporting in endoscopic ultrasound: Results of an international multicenter survey (the QUOREUS study) |
title_fullStr | Quality of reporting in endoscopic ultrasound: Results of an international multicenter survey (the QUOREUS study) |
title_full_unstemmed | Quality of reporting in endoscopic ultrasound: Results of an international multicenter survey (the QUOREUS study) |
title_short | Quality of reporting in endoscopic ultrasound: Results of an international multicenter survey (the QUOREUS study) |
title_sort | quality of reporting in endoscopic ultrasound: results of an international multicenter survey (the quoreus study) |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8216784/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34222644 http://dx.doi.org/10.1055/a-1482-7769 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT fusarolipietro qualityofreportinginendoscopicultrasoundresultsofaninternationalmulticentersurveythequoreusstudy AT eloubeidimohamad qualityofreportinginendoscopicultrasoundresultsofaninternationalmulticentersurveythequoreusstudy AT calvaneseclaudio qualityofreportinginendoscopicultrasoundresultsofaninternationalmulticentersurveythequoreusstudy AT dietrichchristoph qualityofreportinginendoscopicultrasoundresultsofaninternationalmulticentersurveythequoreusstudy AT jenssenchristian qualityofreportinginendoscopicultrasoundresultsofaninternationalmulticentersurveythequoreusstudy AT saftoiuadrian qualityofreportinginendoscopicultrasoundresultsofaninternationalmulticentersurveythequoreusstudy AT deangelisclaudio qualityofreportinginendoscopicultrasoundresultsofaninternationalmulticentersurveythequoreusstudy AT varadarajulushyam qualityofreportinginendoscopicultrasoundresultsofaninternationalmulticentersurveythequoreusstudy AT napoleonbertrand qualityofreportinginendoscopicultrasoundresultsofaninternationalmulticentersurveythequoreusstudy AT lisottiandrea qualityofreportinginendoscopicultrasoundresultsofaninternationalmulticentersurveythequoreusstudy AT qualityofreportinginendoscopicultrasoundresultsofaninternationalmulticentersurveythequoreusstudy |