AIM: To evaluate the impact of endoscopic ultrasonography(EUS) quality assessment on EUS procedures by comparing the most recent 2013-2014 local EUS procedural reports against relevant corresponding data from a 2009 s...AIM: To evaluate the impact of endoscopic ultrasonography(EUS) quality assessment on EUS procedures by comparing the most recent 2013-2014 local EUS procedural reports against relevant corresponding data from a 2009 survey of EUS using standardized quality indicators(QIs). METHODS: Per EUS exam, 27 QIs were assessed individually and by grouping pre-, intra-, and postprocedural parameters. The recorded QI frequencies from 200 reports(2013-2014) were compared to corresponding data of 100 reports from the quality control study of EUS in 2009. Data for QIs added after 2009 to professional guidelines(added after 2010) were also tabulated. RESULTS: Significant differences(P-value < 0.05) were found for 13 of 20 of the relevant QIs examined. 4 of 5 pre-procedural QIs, 6 of 10 intra-procedural QIs, and 3 of 5 post-procedural QIs all demonstrated significant upgrading with a P-value < 0.05. CONCLUSION: Significant improvements were demonstrated in QI adherence and thus EUS reporting and delivery quality when the 2013-2014 reports were compared to 2009 results. QI implementation facilitates effective high-quality EUS exams by ensuring comprehensive documentation while limiting error.展开更多
文摘AIM: To evaluate the impact of endoscopic ultrasonography(EUS) quality assessment on EUS procedures by comparing the most recent 2013-2014 local EUS procedural reports against relevant corresponding data from a 2009 survey of EUS using standardized quality indicators(QIs). METHODS: Per EUS exam, 27 QIs were assessed individually and by grouping pre-, intra-, and postprocedural parameters. The recorded QI frequencies from 200 reports(2013-2014) were compared to corresponding data of 100 reports from the quality control study of EUS in 2009. Data for QIs added after 2009 to professional guidelines(added after 2010) were also tabulated. RESULTS: Significant differences(P-value < 0.05) were found for 13 of 20 of the relevant QIs examined. 4 of 5 pre-procedural QIs, 6 of 10 intra-procedural QIs, and 3 of 5 post-procedural QIs all demonstrated significant upgrading with a P-value < 0.05. CONCLUSION: Significant improvements were demonstrated in QI adherence and thus EUS reporting and delivery quality when the 2013-2014 reports were compared to 2009 results. QI implementation facilitates effective high-quality EUS exams by ensuring comprehensive documentation while limiting error.
