Quality Indicators For Gastrointestinal Endos

GUIDELINE
Quality indicators for gastrointestinal endoscopy units

Prepared by: ASGE ENDOSCOPY UNIT QUALITY INDICATOR TASKFORCE
Lukejohn W. Day, MD, Jonathan Cohen, MD, FASGE, David Greenwald, MD, FASGE,
Bret T. Petersen, MD, FASGE, Nancy S. Schlossberg, BSN, RN, Joseph J. Vicari, MD, MBA, FASGE,
Audrey H. Calderwood, MD, FASGE, Frank J. Chapman, MBA, Lawrence B. Cohen, MD,
Glenn Eisen, MD, MPH, FASGE, Patrick D. Gerstenberger, MD, FASGE, Ralph David Hambrick, III, RN,
John M. Inadomi, MD, Donald MacIntosh, MD, Justin L. Sewell, MD, MPH, Roland Valori, MD
INTRODUCTION fication and adoption for use in other countries across

Europe8,9 and Canada.10,11 However, there are limitations
Significant efforts have been dedicated to defining what with the GRS. Whether improvements in 1 particular
constitutes high-quality endoscopy. These efforts, centered indicator are correlated with other areas of endoscopy
on developing, refining, and implementing procedure- unit performance and outcomes cannot be ascertained
associated quality indicators1-5 have been helpful in pro- from the GRS data. Also, the process for developing and
moting best practices among endoscopists and providing reaching consensus on the GRS indicators has varied
evidence-based care for our patients. At the same time, extensively in their rigor and breadth of stakeholder partic-
the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy ipation. To date, no such effort to identify and promote
(ASGE) has generated programming to assist physicians endoscopy unit–level quality indicators has been per-
and allied healthcare professionals in understanding how formed in the United States.
to translate quality concepts into practice. With this A compendium of quality indicators for endoscopy units in
work, we now have a stronger sense of how to measure the United States is needed to strengthen programming
quality at the patient and procedural level. around the promotion of quality and to give endoscopy units
A critical component of high-quality endoscopy services an organizational framework within which they can direct
relates to the site of the procedure: the endoscopy unit. their efforts. As healthcare reimbursement in the United
Unlike many procedure-associated quality indicators, States becomes more dependent upon demonstration of per-
evidenced-based indicators used to measure the quality formance and quality, endoscopists, governing organizations,
of endoscopy units are lacking. Outside of the United payers, and patients will be looking for guidance on endos-
States, the United Kingdom’s National Health Services copy unit–wide performance. Consequently, the ASGE
developed the Global Rating Scale (GRS) in 20046 with convened a taskforce whose primary objectives were to (1)
the dual aims of enhancing quality while developing develop a comprehensive document that identifies key qual-
uniformity in endoscopy unit processes and operations. ity indicators for endoscopy units as defined by the literature
This scoring system was the first to assess service at the and expert opinion and (2) achieve consensus on these qual-
level of the endoscopy unit and has been instrumental in ity indicators from important stakeholders involved in endos-
reducing wait times, identifying service gaps, increasing copy unit operations and quality improvement (Video 1,
patient satisfaction, and reducing adverse events within available online at www.VideoGIE.org).
endoscopy units in the United Kingdom.7 Additionally,
the GRS has demonstrated that measuring an endoscopy
unit parameter repeatedly and incorporating it into a METHODS
quality improvement program leads to improvement for
many indicators.6-8 Use of the GRS has spread with modi- Endoscopy unit quality indicator taskforce
A taskforce composed of a diverse group of 16 represen-
tatives from various GI practice settings both in the United
States and internationally was assembled on May 19, 2013.
Copyright ª 2017 American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. The taskforce consisted of gastroenterologists (14) and GI
Published by Elsevier Inc. This is an open access article under the CC BY- nurses (2); 8 of the members also held leadership roles
NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/). within their endoscopy units. The taskforce was further
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.vgie.2017.02.007 divided into 5 working subgroups to address the following
If you would like to chat with an author of this article, you may contact Dr domains: (1) patient experience, (2) employee experience,
Day at Lukejohn.Day@ucsf.edu. (3) efficiency and operations, (4) procedure-related
www.VideoGIE.org Volume 2, No. 6 : 2017 VIDEOGIE 119

Endoscopy unit quality indicators
endoscopy unit issues, and (5) safety and infection control. respondents agreed with the importance and relevance
The leader of each working subgroup plus the 2 taskforce of a potential quality indicator and (2) the extent to which
chairs (L.W.D and J.C.) formed the steering committee. respondents agreed with one another.16 The consensus
process consisted of 2 rounds of online voting using
Study design the REDCap program (UCSF, San Francisco, Calif). Each
The project was divided into 3 phases: (1) systematic participant was randomly assigned to complete a survey
literature review and generation of potential endoscopy related to 1 of the 5 domains. There were 495 individuals
unit quality indicators by each of the 5 subgroups; (2) invited to participate in the survey, including physicians,
approval of these potential endoscopy unit quality indica- nurses, practice managers, and quality officers who were
tors by the steering committee and then rating of these po- involved with or impacted by quality in U.S. endoscopy
tential indicators on several parameters by invited units.
participants using a modified Delphi method; and (3) In the first round of voting, participants provided demo-
reaching consensus on a final set of endoscopy unit quality graphic information, including gender, role within an
indicators. The steering committee unanimously agreed endoscopy unit, and practice setting, and then were asked
upon the methodology as outlined above. to rate each potential quality indicator on the following 4
questions:
Generation, development, and finalization of “Is this potential indicator an important parameter
potential endoscopy unit quality indicators related to the quality of care for a patient in an endos-
Over the course of 9 months each subgroup leader copy unit?” (ie, related to quality)
conducted a systematic literature review using PubMed, “Is this a meaningful element of a high-quality endos-
Google Scholar, Embase, and Medline using key search copy unit / important outcome?” (ie, meaningful to
terms to identify endoscopy unit quality indicators for their measure)
respective domain. In the absence of data that linked “Is this feasible to measure?” (ie, feasible to measure)
endoscopy unit level indicators with improved patient “Is your endoscopy unit currently compliant with this
outcomes, subgroups relied on expert opinion and existing parameter?” (ie, compliance with the indicator in their
regulatory standards. The subgroups initially examined the own endoscopy unit)
work of the United Kingdom’s GRS6 and the Canadian Ratings were based on a 5-point scale (1Zstrongly
Association of Gastroenterology consensus guidelines on disagree, 2Zdisagree, 3Zneutral/uncertain, 4Zagree,
safety and quality indicators10 to help develop a 5Zstrongly agree). Only those respondents who partici-
framework for generating potential endoscopy unit pated in the first round of voting were invited to partici-
quality indicators. The subgroups used this framework to pate in the second round. In the second round,
generate a candidate list of endoscopy unit quality participants were shown the same set of potential quality
indicators that were then reviewed by the steering indicators along with the individual’s previous response
committee. The steering committee subsequently met on and the most common response of the overall group for
March 7 to 8, 2014, to refine these potential endoscopy the question on relatedness of the indicator to quality.
unit quality indicators and unanimously agreed upon Participants were then asked “How would you now rate
155 potential quality indicators (patient experience, 46; this parameter?” using the same rating scale. Two reminder
employee experience, 33; efficiency and operations, 25; emails were sent to all invited participants during the
procedure-related, 24; and safety and infection control, course of the survey. No incentives were offered.
27) for the voting phase of the study. After both rounds of voting were complete, research
For the purposes of this guideline, the taskforce defined questions were generated by each subgroup and then
a quality indicator as a particular parameter that is being reviewed and unanimously agreed on by the steering
used for comparison. A quality indicator is often reported committee.
as a ratio between the incidence of correct performance
and the opportunity for optimal performance, or as the Invited participants
proportion of interventions that achieve a predefined Given that a number of groups are involved with quality
goal.12 as it pertains to an endoscopy unit, a broad range of indi-
viduals were invited to participate in the survey. Invited
Reaching consensus on endoscopy unit quality participants included the nurse manager and medical
indicators director from endoscopy units participating in the ASGE’s
Given the lack of available data on endoscopy unit qual- Endoscopy Unit Recognition Program, all members of the
ity indicators, the steering committee used a modified ASGE’s Quality Assurance in Endoscopy Committee,
Delphi method13-15 to reach consensus on which of the regional presidents of the Society for Gastrointestinal
155 proposed indicators to include in the final guideline. Nursing Association, and members of the American Gastro-
The goal of the Delphi process was to measure 2 enterological Association and American College of Gastro-
main parameters for consensus: (1) the extent to which enterology’s committees on quality. All respondents were
120 VIDEOGIE Volume 2, No. 6 : 2017 www.VideoGIE.org

TABLE 1. Characteristics of the respondents for the endoscopy unit quality indicator survey
Patient Employee Safety and

experience, experience, Efficiency and Procedure-related, infection control,* Total,
n (%) n (%) operations, n (%) n (%) n (%) N (%)
Invited, n 107 90 93 102 103 495

Any partial or complete 35 (32.7) 39 (43.3) 36 (38.7) 32 (31.4) 29 (28.2) 171 (34.5)
response, n (%)
Completed part 1 only, n (%) 12 (11.2) 8 (8.9) 10 (10.8) 8 (7.8) 11 (10.7) 49 (9.9)
Completed part 1 and 2, n (%) 15 (14.0) 30 (33.3) 25 (26.9) 22 (21.6) 18 (17.5) 110 (22.2)
Female gender, n (%) 24 (68.6) 26 (66.7) 21 (58.3) 15 (46.9) 14 (50.0) 100 (58.8)
Role, n (%)
Physician 15 (42.9) 17 (43.6) 16 (44.4) 18 (56.3) 15 (53.6) 81 (47.6)
Nurse 9 (25.7) 11 (28.2) 7 (19.4) 5 (15.6) 5 (17.9) 37 (21.8)
Practice manager 5 (14.3) 5 (12.8) 6 (16.7) 4 (12.5) 3 (10.7) 23 (13.5)
Quality officer/administrator 3 (8.6) 4 (10.3) 5 (13.9) 4 (12.5) 5 (17.9) 21 (12.4)
Other 3 (8.6) 2 (5.1) 2 (5.6) 1 (3.1) 0 (0.0) 8 (4.7)
Setting, n (%)
Hospital-based 17 (48.6) 19 (48.7) 18 (50.0) 18 (56.3) 18 (64.3) 90 (52.9)
Ambulatory center 15 (42.9) 16 (41.0) 18 (50.0) 13 (40.6) 9 (32.1) 71 (41.8)
Office suite 3 (8.6) 3 (7.7) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 1 (3.6) 7 (4.1)
VA 0 (0.0) 1 (2.6) 0 (0.0) 1 (3.1) 0 (0.0) 2 (1.2)
VA, Veterans Administration.
*Note: 1 respondent did not complete the demographics section.
deidentified with respect to name and institution during endoscopy unit. These 5 indicators were selected using
the 2 rounds of voting. previous definitions of a “high-priority quality indicator”
and were based on clinical relevance and importance, and
evidence or consensus that there was significant perfor-
Statistical analysis mance variation of the indicator among endoscopy units.4
Respondent characteristics that were collected as
To avoid excluding other important endoscopy unit
continuous data were presented as means with standard
quality indicators, all potential endoscopy unit quality
deviations, whereas categoric data were presented as pro-
indicators, and their representative scores from the survey,
portions (Table 1). The median was reported along with
are included in Tables 2 to 6.
the associated percentage of individuals who reported
that median for each of the questions asked on the first
Ethical considerations
and second rounds of voting for all of the potential
This study was part of an ongoing quality improvement
endoscopy unit quality indicators (Tables 2-6).
project aimed at developing quality indicators for endos-
Potential indicators had to meet 2 initial requirements to
copy units in the United States. Given that the study was
be considered for inclusion in the final guideline (ie, the
related to quality improvement and no personal health
consensus threshold): (1) the indicator had to have a me-
information was collected at any time, formal institutional
dian of “5” (strongly agree) on the second round of voting,
review was not required.
and (2) the indicator needed to have 80% of respondents
rate that indicator as a “5” on the second round of voting.
Afterward, only the 6 highest-rated indicators (ie, those in- RESULTS
dicators with the highest percentage scores for respondents
rating that indicator a “5” in the second round of voting) Survey respondent characteristics
from each domain were included in the final guideline. There were 495 individuals that were invited to partici-
These cutoff criteria were established to identify those indi- pate in the survey. The overall survey response rate for
cators that were rated most important by respondents and both the first and the second round of voting was 22.2%
to provide endoscopy units a feasible framework for which (range, 14.0% to 33.3%) with the greatest response rate
to identify and start measuring quality indicators. Finally, in the domains of employee experience and efficiency
from among this group of indicators, the steering commit- and operations. The majority of respondents were female
tee identified 5 priority indicators that were determined (58.8%) with respondent’s role in the endoscopy unit
as those most compelling to measure for a high-quality being either a physician (47.6%) or a nurse (21.8%). Most

TABLE 2. Survey results using the Delphi method to examine potential endoscopy unit quality indicators for the Patient Experience domain
1st round voting (n [ 27), median (%), 2nd round voting

1 [ strongly disagree, 5 [ strongly agree (n [ 15), median (%)
Patients’ communication needs and Related to Meaningful to Feasible to Compliance in own Related to
performance quality measure (%) measure (%) endoscopy unit (%) quality (%)
Communication needs are recorded as 5 5 (64.7) 4.5 (50.0) 4 (22.9) 5 (80.0)

part of the nursing assessment.
Language translation services are available 5 5 (71.4) 5 (74.3) 5 (58.8) 5 (80.0)
when needed.*
The identity of the interpreter is documented. 4 4 (31.4) 5 (60.0) 4 (28.6) 5 (75.0)
Patient information is available on all 5 5 (56.3) 5 (65.6) 4 (31.3) 5 (75.0)
endoscopic procedures performed in the
endoscopy unit that conforms to literacy,
language, and cultural appropriateness of
the patient population cared for by the
endoscopy unit.
The method of provision of information 5 5 (51.5) 5 (57.6) 5 (56.3) 5 (75.0)
to the patient is documented.
Endoscopy unit has access to a quiet area 5 5 (55.9) 5 (58.8) 4 (23.5) 5 (55.0)
that provides privacy for discussions
with patients and care partner(s).
Unit policy discourages the use of family 4 4 (17.1) 4 (28.6) 4 (25.7) 4 (15.8)
and friends as interpreters.
Related to Meaningful to Feasible to Compliance in own Related to quality

Scheduling and appointments quality measure (%) measure (%) endoscopy unit (%) (%)
Patients are informed of their appointment 5 5 (79.4) 5 (79.4) 5 (75.8) 5 (85.0)

(ie, in person, by mail, phone, or email).
A preprocedure review is undertaken to 5 5 (88.2) 5 (79.4) 5 (73.5) 5 (80.0)
screen patients for appropriateness and
to communicate with patients about
key elements of their procedure.*
Methods are in place for identifying appropriate 5 5 (66.7) 5 (57.6) 5 (46.9) 5 (60.0)
surveillance appointment needs, and timely
notification and scheduling of appointments
is provided.
Patients and referring physicians are informed of 5 5 (54.6) 5 (54.6) 4 (18.2) 4 (35.0)
their missed appointments, with commentary
regarding the potential health consequences
of missed appointments.*
Data on facility costs and quality are available 4 4 (18.2) 5 (51.5) 3 (27.3) 4 (10.0)
and transparent to prospective patients,
families, and referring physicians.

Informed consent quality measure (%) measure (%) endoscopy unit (%) (%)
Signatures are obtained on a consent form 5 5 (82.4) 5 (91.2) 5 (87.5) 5 (95.0)

for all patients who are able to sign the form,
and procedures are in place for those who
cannot provide consent independently.
All patients are given an opportunity to ask 5 5 (79.4) 5 (76.5) 5 (76.5) 5 (90.0)
questions about the procedure before the
endoscopy by a professional trained in
the consent process.
Informed consent is obtained and documented 5 5 (79.4) 5 (82.4) 5 (72.7) 5 (80.0)
by the provider performing the procedure.*
Unit has a policy to review informed consent 5 5 (51.4) 5 (51.5) 4 (15.2) 5 (70.0)
forms and process on a regular basis.
(continued on the next page)

TABLE 2. Continued

Informed consent quality measure (%) measure (%) endoscopy unit (%) (%)
Published written patient information sheet 5 5 (52.9) 5 (57.7) 5 (50.0) 5 (65.0)

that includes guidance on frequently asked
questions for all procedures (both endoscopic
and nonendoscopic) performed in the
department is available to patients.
Endoscopy unit has a written policy for 4 4 (18.8) 4 (25.0) 3 (33.3) 3 (70.0)
withdrawal of consent during an
endoscopic procedure.

Procedural indications quality measure (%) measure (%) endoscopy unit (%) (%)
The unit adopts standard indications for 5 5 (79.4) 5 (75.8) 5 (60.6) 5 (84.2)
endoscopic procedures based upon
current national guidelines.*
Unit policy exists to regularly review the 5 5 (58.8) 5 (52.9) 4 (14.7) 5 (60.0)
indications for performed procedures
according to published list of standard
indications.
Use of an indication or time-to-procedure 4 4 (18.2) 4 (27.3) 3 (28.1) 4 (25.0)
interval that is outside of accepted
standards is clearly documented in
the patient’s health record.

Communication of results quality measure (%) measure (%) endoscopy unit (%) (%)
Procedure reports are communicated to 5 5 (90.9) 5 (87.9) 5 (72.7) 5 (95.0)

referring providers.*
Pathology reports for patients with cancer 5 5 (78.8) 5 (75.8) 5 (64.5) 5 (90.0)
are dispatched to referrers after the receipt
of the report.*
Pathology reports are received by the 5 5 (90.9) 5 (87.9) 5 (81.8) 5 (87.9)
endoscopist (or referrer) responsible for
acting upon them within a timely manner.*
The unit uses a process for timely 5 5 (78.1) 5 (78.1) 5 (64.5) 5 (85.0)
communication of results to referring
providers that complies with HIPAA statutes
and other state or federal privacy guidelines.*
Results (ie, from the endoscopy report) for all 5 5 (54.6) 5 (51.5) 5 (45.5) 5 (72.2)
inpatients are available in the medical record
before the patient leaves the department.
If the endoscopist has responsibility for taking 5 5 (60.6) 5 (51.5) 4 (18.2) 5 (65.0)
action or making recommendations based on
pathology reports, then the time it takes the
endoscopist to act on the results or provide
recommendations is tracked.*
Postprocedure communication/coordination Related to Meaningful to Feasible to Compliance in own Related to quality

of care quality measure (%) measure (%) endoscopy unit (%) (%)
Patients receive discharge instructions that 5 5 (87.9) 5 (84.9) 5 (81.8) 5 (90.0)

include recommendations for follow-up,
anticoagulation plan, need for antibiotics or
other specific therapy (as indicated), and
timing of resumption of prior medications.*
Process in place for patient to receive a copy 5 5 (69.7) 5 (75.8) 5 (66.7) 5 (90.0)
of the endoscopy report.

TABLE 2. Continued
Postprocedure communication/coordination Related to Meaningful to Feasible to Compliance in own Related to quality

of care quality measure (%) measure (%) endoscopy unit (%) (%)
Communication of results to the patient and/or 5 5 (81.8) 5 (78.8) 5 (68.8) 5 (85.0)

family is complete and timely, including
prompt acknowledgement of recognized
adverse events and incomplete or neglected
therapies, or sampling.
Upon discharge from the endoscopy unit, 5 5 (81.3) 5 (78.8) 5 (63.6) 5 (85.0)
patients are given instructions, both written
and verbal, that conforms to literacy and
language appropriateness. Instructions
document pertinent procedure findings,
treatment, contact number in case of
emergencies, and follow-up care.*

Disaster preparedness quality measure (%) measure (%) endoscopy unit (%) (%)
Endoscopy unit maintains a written disaster 5 5 (78.8) 5 (84.9) 5 (87.9) 5 (87.9)

preparedness plan that provides for the
emergency care of all persons in the
facility in the event of fire, natural disaster,
equipment failure, or other unexpected
events or circumstances that are likely to
threaten the health and safety, and they
coordinate the plan with state and local
authorities, as appropriate.*
Appropriate drills of disaster preparedness 5 5 (66.7) 5 (74.2) 5 (72.7) 5 (87.9)
plan are performed and documented.

Ability to provide feedback quality measure (%) measure (%) endoscopy unit (%) (%)
Endoscopy unit has a person or committee 5 5 (78.1) 5 (78.1) 5 (64.5) 5 (85.0)

responsible for reviewing patient complaints.*
Basic monitoring and recording of patient 5 5 (84.9) 5 (84.4) 5 (81.8) 5 (85.0)
comfort and pain levels before, during,
and after the procedure.
Endoscopy unit has a system for gathering 5 5 (84.4) 5 (81.3) 5 (74.2) 5 (80.0)
patient feedback such as satisfaction surveys,
focus groups, or invited comments.
Actions are planned in response to reported 5 5 (81.3) 5 (78.1) 5 (67.7) 5 (80.0)
patient complaints.*
Documented process for adjudicating patient 5 5 (75.0) 5 (75.0) 5 (68.8) 5 (80.0)
grievances exists on the unit, as required
by state or federal law.
Patients can submit ad hoc patient concerns 5 5 (68.8) 5 (63.6) 5 (60.6) 5 (75.0)
or positive comments about their care.
Patient is given realistic expectation that some 5 5 (71.9) 5 (62.5) 5 (62.5) 5 (75.0)
discomfort may be experienced during the
procedure.
Patient comfort and respect (surveys and 5 5 (56.3) 5 (57.6) 5 (56.3) 5 (70.0)
nurse records) are reviewed.
Yield of return from patient satisfaction 5 5 (69.7) 5 (75.0) 5 (69.7) 5 (70.0)
surveys is tracked and trended.
Patient comfort and respect results (from 5 5 (70.0) 5 (67.7) 5 (54.8) 5 (65.0)
surveys and nurse records) are fed back to
individual endoscopists and the endoscopy
team and are acted upon to ensure issues
have been effectively addressed.

TABLE 2. Continued

Ability to provide feedback quality measure (%) measure (%) endoscopy unit (%) (%)
Patient satisfaction surveys include questions 5 5 (66.7) 5 (66.7) 4.5 (50.0) 5 (65.0)
regarding the quality of patient information
provided.
Accessibility to facilities (ie, parking, 4 4 (30.4) 5 (54.6) 5 (51.5) 4 (40.0)
way-finding).
Waiting room amenities are conducive to a 4 4 (21.9) 4 (24.2) 4 (39.4) 4 (35.0)
positive patient experience (ie, ambiance,
WiFi, seating, cleanliness, noise).
Indicators that are shaded white had consensus reached on them (ie, median of “5” on the second round of voting for the relatedness parameter with 80% of respondents
rating it a “5”) and were the 6 highest-rated indicators for this domain.
Note: Patients and payers did not participate in the voting process. Both groups were initially invited but opted not to participate.
HIPAA, Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996.
*Mandated by national regulatory or accreditation standards.
respondents were located at a hospital-based endoscopy Again, in each of the 5 domains there was marked varia-
unit (52.9%), followed by ambulatory endoscopy centers tion. Although most potential indicators had a median of
(41.8%). “5” in the parameter “Compliance with indicator in their
There were 155 potential endoscopy unit quality indica- own endoscopy unit,” the percentage of respondents
tors that were assessed. With regard to the individual who reported this median ranged from 13.3% to 93.3%.
parameters related to quality, meaningfulness, feasibility, Similar to the feasibility results, greater compliance was re-
and current compliance, the majority of potential indica- ported for indicators that addressed specific policies or
tors had a median of “5” (ie, strongly agree) in each of processes as compared with those that focused on gath-
these 4 areas on the first round of voting. 66 quality indica- ering and reporting data.
tors met our consensus threshold (ie, had a median of “5”
with 80% of respondents rating it a “5” in the second Patient experience
round of voting). From this list, the highest-rated 6 indica- The patient experience domain incorporated 46 proposed
tors from each of the 4 domains were selected (1 domain structural and process quality indicators related to 8
had only 5 indicators that met the consensus threshold), subdomains. These subdomains included patients’ communi-
yielding 29 endoscopy unit quality indicators that were cation needs and performance, scheduling and appoint-
included in the final guideline. ments, informed consent, procedural indications,
communication of results, postprocedure communication
Feasibility for measuring endoscopy unit and coordination of care, disaster preparedness, and ability
quality indicators to provide feedback. Initially, 23 indicators across the 8 subdo-
Across all 5 of the domains there was marked variation mains met the initial consensus threshold with the highest-
in perceived feasibility of measuring the proposed quality rated 6 indicators then identified (Table 2). These top 6
indicators. Although most quality indicators had a median quality indicators centered on 3 areas: (1) informed consent
of “5” in the parameter “Feasible to measure,” the percent- (ie, obtaining necessary signatures and answering patients’
age of respondents who reported this median ranged from questions), (2) communication of results, specifically to
96.2% to 44.8%. It was well recognized that some indica- referring providers, and (3) postprocedure communication
tors are clearly significant and deemed meaningful but to patients about discharge instructions and the process for
are less feasible for measurement and implementation in how patients could receive their endoscopy reports. Among
practice and therefore limited in application. Those that these 6 indicators there was strong agreement during round
were rated highly with regard to feasibility addressed spe- 1 voting for the “Meaningful to measure” and for “Feasible
cific endoscopy unit policies and processes. In contrast, to measure” parameters. The majority of voters deemed
the feasibility of measuring endoscopy unit quality indica- their own units to be in compliance with all 6 of these
tors was rated most difficult in areas where data were endoscopy unit quality indicators. Among the originally
more detailed, harder to collect, and/or needed to be proposed indicators that did not reach the initial consensus
communicated to staff. threshold, 16 had a median of 5 (“strong agreement”) with
less uniformity (<80%), 6 had a median of 4, and 1 had a
Compliance on measuring endoscopy unit median of 3 (“neutral”) in the second round of voting. None
quality indicators of the proposed indicators had a median of 2
Respondents were asked whether their endoscopy units (“disagreement”) or 1 (“strong disagreement”) on any
were compliant with the proposed quality indicators. parameter in both rounds of voting.

TABLE 3. Survey results using the Delphi method to examine potential endoscopy unit quality indicators for the Employee Experience domain

Employee orientation quality measure (%) measure (%) endoscopy unit (%) (%)
Employee orientation process is in place 5 5 (64.1) 5 (66.7) 5 (65.8) 5 (70.0)

and documented.*
Current professional physician and nursing 5 5 (52.6) 5 (50.0) 5 (54.1) 5 (70.0)
practice guidelines and position statements
are available.
Staff are oriented to HIPAA compliance and 5 5 (65.8) 5 (68.4) 5 (81.1) 5 (66.7)
safety in addition to their job specific tasks.*

Employee safety quality measure (%) measure (%) endoscopy unit (%) (%)
Staff are up to date on their influenza 5 4.5 (50.0) 5 (84.6) 5 (71.1) 5 (66.7)
vaccinations.
Disruptive staff behavior is addressed and 5 5 (56.4) 4 (43.6) 5 (50.0) 5 (63.3)
resolved.
Organization provides information on 5 5 (61.5) 5 (69.2) 5 (73.0) 5 (53.3)
environmental health and safety policies
that must be followed in the workplace.*
Workplace policies include processes to reduce 5 4 (41.0) 4 (30.8) 5 (55.3) 5 (53.3)
or prevent occupational injuries and illnesses
through appropriate training and preventive
activities.*

Employee recognition quality measure (%) measure (%) endoscopy unit (%) (%)
Employee recognition program is in place. 4 4 (34.2) 4 (39.5) 4 (42.1) 4 (36.7)

Employee growth quality measure (%) measure (%) endoscopy unit (%) (%)
Organization provides continuing education 5 5 (61.5) 5 (56.4) 4 (43.2) 5 (63.3)

opportunities.
Employees are given opportunities for 4 4 (38.5) 4 (41.0) 4 (39.5) 4 (56.7)
leadership and promotion.

Employee feedback quality measure (%) measure (%) endoscopy unit (%) (%)
Unit promotes a culture where staff are 5 5 (80.6) 4 (18.9) 5 (58.3) 5 (90.0)
empowered to raise concerns about safety
and quality in daily operations without fear
of retribution.
Formal staff meetings (including staff and clinic 5 5 (57.9) 5 (79.0) 5 (57.1) 5 (83.3)
leadership) occur.
Employees have formal avenues of unit and 5 5 (62.2) 5 (54.1) 5 (52.8) 5 (73.3)
organizational communication.
System in place for ongoing and regular 5 5 (66.7) 5 (51.4) 4.5 (47.2) 5 (70.0)
feedback from staff on the quality of their
work environment.
Employees receive results of employee feedback 5 5 (48.7) 5 (59.5) 5 (41.7) 5 (63.3)
surveys.
Employees are invited to provide job satisfaction 5 5 (54.1) 5 (62.2) 5 (58.3) 5 (58.6)
feedback to their organization.

TABLE 3. Continued

Employee feedback quality measure (%) measure (%) endoscopy unit (%) (%)
Employee satisfaction survey results 4 4 (36.1) 4 (33.3) 4 (14.7) 5 (55.2)

are considered in development of
facility/unit plans.
Process in place for exit interviews to be 4 4 (40.5) 4 (24.3) 4 (16.7) 4 (43.3)
recorded and/or feedback to clinical and
general managers.

Performance evaluation quality measure (%) measure (%) endoscopy unit (%) (%)
Employees receive individualized performance 5 5 (70.3) 5 (69.4) 5 (62.9) 5 (82.8)

evaluations with reports.*
System in place for ongoing and regular 5 5 (71.1) 5 (70.3) 5 (62.2) 5 (75.9)
feedback to staff on the quality of their work,
with periodic formal documentation.
Action plans are in place to address performance 5 5 (52.6) 5 (67.6) 4 (13.5) 5 (75.9)
issues identified during appraisal and
assessment.
Rate of unauthorized absenteeism is tracked. 5 5 (37.8) 5 (54.1) 5 (31.4) 5 (62.1)
Average retention rates for employees are 4 4 (21.6) 5 (54.1) 3 (40.0) 4 (43.3)
tracked and benchmarked.
Job vacancy rate is tracked. 4 4 (21.6) 5 (54.1) 4 (36.1) 4 (28.6)
Overall and first-year staff turnover rates are 4 4 (27.0) 5 (55.6) 4 (8.6) 4 (27.6)
tracked.

Training quality measure (%) measure (%) endoscopy unit (%) (%)
Endoscopy unit has regular education, 5 5 (76.3) 5 (63.2) 5 (51.4) 5 (90.0)

training programs, and continuous quality
improvement for all staff on new equipment/
devices and endoscopic techniques.*
Team training is used for new techniques/ 5 5 (56.8) 4.5 (50.0) 4 (27.0) 5 (86.7)
technology to emphasize communication
between providers and nurses.
Staff feedback is considered in development 5 5 (57.9) 4 (26.3) 4.5 (47.2) 5 (83.3)
of training programs and in-services.
Endoscopy unit uses training checklists to 5 5 (68.4) 5 (62.2) 4 (13.5) 5 (80.0)
maximize training opportunity for low-volume
procedures.
Training includes emphasis on trouble-shooting 5 5 (63.2) 5 (52.6) 4 (27.0) 5 (80.0)
commonly experienced and high-risk
problems.
Training programs are competency-based and 5 5 (63.2) 5 (52.6) 4 (26.5) 5 (80.0)
modified in response to staff feedback.
Trainers are competent for what they teach 5 5 (63.2) 4 (29.0) 4 (35.1) 5 (80.0)
and a mechanism is in place to assess their
ability to teach.
Identified staff member coordinates training 5 5 (55.3) 5 (55.3) 4 (32.4) 5 (66.7)
checklists.

TABLE 4. Survey results using the Delphi method to examine potential endoscopy unit quality indicators for the Efficiency and Operations
domain

Leadership/strategic planning quality measure (%) measure (%) endoscopy unit (%) (%)
Endoscopy unit has a defined leadership 5 5 (66.7) 5 (83.3) 5 (77.8) 5 (92.0)

structure.*
Designated individual within the leadership 5 5 (66.7) 5 (69.4) 5 (61.1) 5 (84.0)
hierarchy oversees quality.*
Mission statement incorporates and physician 5 5 (61.1) 4 (30.6) 5 (63.9) 5 (76.0)
leadership champions a “culture of quality.”
Endoscopy unit participates in formal quality 5 5 (63.9) 5 (63.9) 4 (37.1) 5 (72.0)
benchmarking.
Staff participates in appraisal of unit policies and 5 5 (75.0) 5 (61.1) 5 (61.1) 5 (72.0)
daily operations and are encouraged to
suggest improvements.
Endoscopy unit has a process in place to address 5 5 (58.3) 4 (41.7) 4 (37.1) 5 (68.0)
unexpected operational challenges in a timely
manner.
Endoscopy unit has a practice administrator with 4 3 (27.8) 4 (27.8) 5 (50.0) 4 (48.0)
advanced business training or experience.
Endoscopy unit leadership has an annual 4.5 4 (25.0) 5 (63.9) 4 (28.6) 4 (32.0)
strategic planning meeting.

Operations quality measure (%) measure (%) endoscopy unit (%) (%)
Endoscopy unit adheres to regulatory 5 5 (83.3) 5 (83.3) 5 (91.7) 5 (87.5)

requirements, including federal, state, local,
and institutional, with respect to facilities
and operating space.*
Endoscopy unit has a policy on administering 5 5 (64.7) 5 (61.1) 5 (51.4) 5 (87.5)
monitored anesthesia care (MAC) and
moderate sedation.
Unit committee(s) structure includes effective 5 5 (86.1) 5 (85.7) 5 (88.6) 5 (84.0)
governance with physician and other
stakeholder participation.
Endoscopy unit has a quality assurance 5 5 (80.6) 5 (63.9) 5 (69.6) 5 (72.0)
committee that develops and enforces quality
standard policies, meets regularly, generates
quality reports for the endoscopy center and
leadership, and manages quality
improvement projects.*
Unit has a process in place to regularly trend 5 5 (58.3) 5 (61.8) 4 (31.4) 5 (68.0)
and adjust resource availability, including
equipment, space, time, and staff
(eg, procedures/room/day, number of
endoscopes/room)
Endoscopy unit has a policy on the formal 5 5 (55.6) 5 (58.3) 4 (33.3) 5 (68.0)
review and evaluation for new devices
and equipment.*
Endoscopy unit staff (eg, technician, nurse) 5 5 (65.7) 5 (63.9) 5 (72.2) 5 (64.0)
are cross-trained.
Key intervals of patient throughput in the 5 4 (47.2) 5 (66.7) 4 (42.9) 5 (60.0)
endoscopy unit are measured (eg, room
turnover time, recovery time).

TABLE 4. Continued

Operations quality measure (%) measure (%) endoscopy unit (%) (%)
Rate of “no shows” and canceled 4 5 (52.8) 5 (66.7) 5 (52.8) 5 (56.0)

appointments or procedures.
Endoscopy unit has a policy for late-arriving 5 5 (55.9) 5 (58.8) 4 (20.0) 4 (32.0)
staff (including physicians).
Endoscopy unit has a policy for late-arriving 4 4 (30.6) 4 (31.4) 3 (30.6) 4 (28.0)
patients.
Rate of on-time first case start. 4 4.5 (50.0) 5 (66.7) 4 (25.2) 4 (28.0)
Rate of room turnover time (case complete 4 4 (30.6) 5 (63.9) 5 (54.3) 4 (28.0)
to next case start time).

Timeliness quality measure (%) measure (%) endoscopy unit (%) (%)
Time from procedure request to procedure 4 4 (38.9) 4 (22.9) 3.5 (19.4) 4 (28.0)
date for routine procedures is tracked.
Endoscopy unit has a system in place to classify 5 5 (47.2) 4.5 (44.4) 4.5 (36.1) 4 (20.8)
endoscopy referrals into emergent, urgent,
and routine categories.
Endoscopy wait times are communicated to 4 4 (27.8) 4 (13.9) 3 (23.5) 3 (28.0)
the endoscopy team and made available
to referring physicians.
Wait time for urgent and semiurgent 4 4 (20.6) 4 (25.7) 3 (31.4) 3 (28.0)
(within 24 hours) procedures.
Overall patient experience quality indicators were rated How can endoscopy unit quality programs (EUQPs)
highly with respect to the feasibility of their measurement, evaluating patient experience best develop, select, and
with 41 of 46 indicators having a median of 5. Lower scores measure indicators that are patient identified, accurately
for “own unit compliance” were more closely associated measure our patients’ actual health care encounter
with the excluded indicators on round 2 voting than experience, and address those concerns that are of
were lower scores for “relatedness to quality,” “meaningful greatest importance to our patients?
to measure,” or “feasible to measure.” Indicators receiving Can the GI professional societies facilitate standardized
lower compliance ratings and considered by the respon- and benchmarked unit quality programs by developing
dents to be less related to quality included: making data a web-based program modeled on the GRS and Gastro-
on facility costs and quality available, documentation in intestinal Quality Unit Improvement Consortium
the patient’s health record of indications or surveillance (GIQuIC)?
intervals that depart from recommendations or guidelines, To what extent do patient experience quality indicators
and maintenance of a written policy for withdrawal of con- correlate with other indicators of traditional quality out-
sent during a procedure. comes in endoscopy?
Research questions
To what extent does “documentation,” as opposed to Employee experience
performance measurement, stimulate improvement, or There were 33 potential endoscopy unit quality indica-
enhance care? tors that were originally developed by expert consensus
Can language barriers in written and verbal communication in the employee experience domain. This domain was
be overcome with acceptable quality at tolerable expense? further subdivided into areas that covered employee feed-
Do written and verbal informed consent processes pro- back, performance evaluation, training, employee orienta-
vide adequate patient and family understanding of the tion, employee safety, employee recognition, and
true risks, alternatives, and rates of adverse events? employee growth. Initially, 10 of those indicators that
Once indicators pertaining to processes are established, were proposed met our consensus threshold, of which
how should an endoscopy unit measure its performance the 6 top rated indicators were highlighted (Table 3).
on the indicator? Among these 6 quality indicators, all had a median of

TABLE 5. Survey results using the Delphi method to examine potential endoscopy unit quality indicators for the Procedure-Related domain

Preprocedure quality measure (%) measure (%) endoscopy unit (%) (%)
Endoscopy unit has a process to ensure that all 5 5 (86.7) 5 (82.8) 5 (83.9) 5 (90.9)
elements of the preprocedure assessment are
documented before the procedure begins.
Preprocedure process is reviewed by clinic 5 5 (62.1) 5 (62.1) 5 (69.0) 5 (71.4)
leadership on a regular basis.
Preprocedure space is monitored to ensure that it 5 5 (66.7) 4 (23.3) 5 (67.7) 5 (61.9)
meets patient and staff needs and is clean,
functional, quiet, ensures patient privacy, and
has amenities conducive to a positive patient
experience.
Patients and families are kept informed about 4 4 (22.6) 5 (48.4) 5 (46.9) 4.5 (50.0)
procedure-related wait to manage expectations.

Procedure quality measure (%) measure (%) endoscopy unit (%) (%)
Mechanism(s) are in place to detect, assess, and 5 5 (89.7) 5 (75.9) 4 (17.2) 5 (86.4)
address concerns raised regarding physicians’
competence.
Endoscopy unit records, tracks, and monitors 5 5 (89.7) 5 (75.9) 5 (62.1) 5 (86.4)
procedure quality indicators for both the
endoscopy unit and individual endoscopists.
Unit has policy in place for patient pause/time-out 5 5 (90.0) 5 (82.8) 5 (93.3) 5 (82.8)
that satisfies all key elements.*
Endoscopy unit has a privileging policy 5 5 (85.7) 5 (82.1) 5 (58.6) 5 (81.8)
and committee to make decisions that
a physician’s training and performance is
in accordance with nationally accepted
indicators.*
Data on quality indicators are communicated 5 5 (89.7) 5 (81.8) 5 (53.6) 5 (81.8)
to staff and endoscopists.
Endoscope and accessories used in a procedure 5 5 (69.0) 5 (69.0) 5 (75.9) 5 (81.8)
are identified in a procedure record.*
Endoscopy unit develops quality improvement 5 5 (78.6) 5 (75.9) 5 (60.0) 5 (81.8)
projects that address indicators which are
below targets.
Peer review of procedures by endoscopists is 5 5 (80.0) 5 (82.8) 4 (10.3) 5 (77.3)
performed.
ERCP volume and sphincterotomy volume 5 5 (41.3) 5 (44.8) 5 (13.3) 5 (57.9)
by physician and unit are tracked and
considered for privileging.
Rate of scheduled procedures 5 5 (51.7) 5 (56.7) 4 (20.7) 5 (52.4)
cancelled/rescheduled by provider.
Rate of scheduled procedures 4 4 (10.3) 5 (55.2) 4 (20.7) 4.5 (50.0)
cancelled/rescheduled by patient.

Postprocedure quality measure (%) measure (%) endoscopy unit (%) (%)
Unit has a policy on reconciliation of specimen 5 5 (90.0) 5 (82.8) 5 (86.2) 5 (95.5)

requisition to ensure physician and staff agree
on specimen labeling.*
Patients are not discharged unless formal 5 5 (89.3) 5 (85.7) 5 (86.2) 5 (86.4)
discharge criteria are met.*

TABLE 5. Continued

Postprocedure quality measure (%) measure (%) endoscopy unit (%) (%)
Recovery space is clean, functional, quiet, ensures 5 5 (75.9) 5 (69.0) 5 (79.3) 5 (81.8)
patient privacy, has adequate postprocedure
monitoring for patients, and has amenities
conducive to a positive patient experience.
Rate of hospital admissions after procedure. 5 5 (79.3) 5 (75.9) 5 (66.7) 5 (77.3)
Patient has an opportunity to speak with the 5 5 (69.0) 5 (55.2) 5 (64.3) 5 (77.3)
provider who performed the procedure before
discharge.
Unit has a policy in place for postprocedure 5 5 (72.4) 5 (75.9) 5 (73.3) 5 (77.3)
follow-up call.
Rate of mislabeled/missing pathologic specimens. 5 5 (82.8) 5 (75.9) 5 (69.0) 5 (77.3)
Unit has a policy in place for lack of a responsible 5 5 (69.0) 5 (69.0) 5 (83.3) 5 (72.7)
adult patient escort after procedure.*
Success rate of patient follow-up call after 5 5 (58.6) 5 (65.0) 5 (53.3) 5 (54.6)
procedure.
5 in the parameter of “Meaningful to measure,” whereas 3 Is there a relationship between the quality of the educa-
of these indicators had a median of 5 for “Feasible to tion and a quality outcome (eg, education on endo-
measure” during round 1 voting. One third of scope reprocessing and subsequent compliance with
respondents deemed their own units to be out of all steps)?
compliance with these 6 indicators. By contrast, among Is there a relationship between the manager/supervisor
the originally proposed indicators that did not meet our performance and the quality of employee experience?
initial consensus threshold, 17 had a median of 5 with Is there a relationship between physician attitudes and
less uniformity (<80%) and 6 had a median of 4 in the the overall quality of the endoscopy unit?
second round of voting. None of the proposed indicators What are ways to improve compliance for education
had ratings for “disagreement” or “strong disagreement” and training quality indicators that are rated as meaning-
on any parameter. ful and feasible?
Several themes emerged among the top rated 6 quality What is the relationship between employee recognition
indicators for employee experience. For example, half of programs and the overall quality of the unit?
these indicators underscored the important relationship What are the important opportunities for leadership
between training and overall employee experience. and professional growth in the endoscopy unit?
Respondents agreed that endoscopy units should provide What durations of training are required for safe and in-
regular education programs and continuous quality dependent performance in specific roles within the
improvement for all staff on new equipment/devices and endoscopy unit?
endoscopic techniques, using tools such as checklists How effective are efforts to enhance staff satisfaction/
and team training. Furthermore, this training should be training in improving patient satisfaction and other pro-
competency based, modified in response to staff feedback, cedure outcomes?
and provided by competent trainers. One third of the 6
indicators valued the importance of employee feedback. Efficiency and operations
In this arena, respondents thought that high-quality In the efficiency and operations domain, 25 potential
endoscopy units should foster a culture wherein staff feel endoscopy unit indicators were originally developed by
empowered to raise concerns about the safety and quality expert consensus. They primarily addressed endoscopy
of the endoscopy unit and that there were formal staff unit and individual leadership, endoscopy unit efficiency,
meetings. Finally, 1 indicator reflected the importance of and specific endoscopy unit policies, and were organized
performance evaluations and formalized goal setting for into 3 subdomains of leadership/strategic planning, opera-
employees. tions, and timeliness. Five indicators met our consensus
Research questions threshold on the second round of voting (Table 4). All 5
Is there a correlation between employee experience of these indicators had a median of 5 in the parameter of
and other measures of endoscopy unit quality? “Meaningful to measure,” “Feasible to measure,” and

TABLE 6. Survey results using the Delphi method to examine potential endoscopy unit quality indicators for the Safety and Infection Control
domain

Safety quality measure (%) measure (%) endoscopy unit (%) (%)
Nurses and physicians are credentialed with 5 5 (82.1) 5 (85.7) 5 (85.7) 5 (92.3)
endoscopy unit policy relative to moderate
sedation.*
Endoscopy unit has a written environmental 5 5 (81.5) 5 (85.2) 5 (76.9) 5 (92.3)
disinfection policy.
Endoscopy unit has a system for reviewing 5 5 (92.3) 5 (77.8) 5 (71.4) 5 (83.3)
adverse events and implementing strategies
to prevent or reduce them.*
Presence of all sedation reversal agents is 5 5 (64.3) 5 (75.0) 5 (75.0) 5 (83.3)
verified each day the facility is in operation.*
Endoscopy unit has a system for monitoring 5 5 (75.0) 5 (85.7) 5 (66.7) 5 (83.3)
that all medical equipment, including rescue
devices, are in proper working condition,
and this is verified each day the facility is
in operation.*
Resuscitation equipment, availability, and 5 5 (82.1) 5 (92.9) 5 (82.1) 5 (82.4)
functional status are verified each day
the facility is in operation.*
Endoscopy unit has written policies detailing 5 5 (57.1) 5 (75.0) 5 (67.9) 5 (72.2)
safety procedures in the facility.
Endoscopy unit has a system for recording and 5 5 (89.3) 5 (67.9) 5 (71.4) 5 (72.2)
tracking endoscopy-related adverse events.*
Endoscopy unit has a process in place to 5 5 (53.6) 5 (57.1) 5 (57.1) 5 (72.2)
identify patients at risk for falls.*
Rate of unplanned admissions, emergency 5 5 (69.2) 4 (48.2) 2 (22.2) 5 (66.7)
department visits, and observation stays
within 7 days after receiving a colonoscopy.
Use of reversal agents for sedation is 5 5 (64.3) 5 (81.5) 5 (64.3) 5 (61.1)
documented and tracked on a regular basis.*
Rates of modification, interruption, or 5 5 (60.7) 5 (64.3) 4.5 (50.0) 5 (61.1)
termination of scheduled procedures
because of sedation-related events.*
Number of adverse events that occur within 5 5 (64.3) 5 (51.9) 4 (14.3) 5 (33.3)
14 days of an endoscopic procedure including
in-hospital deaths and nonelective hospital
admissions is recorded.
Mechanism in place to contact patients 14 to 5 4 (25.0) 4 (17.9) 2 (14.3) 4 (27.8)
30 days after their procedure to identify
delayed adverse events.

Infection control quality measure (%) measure (%) endoscopy unit (%) (%)
Process is in place to track each specific 5 5 (82.1) 5 (78.6) 5 (85.7) 5 (94.4)

endoscope from storage, use, reprocessing,
and back to storage.
Endoscopy unit has instructions immediately 5 5 (85.7) 5 (89.3) 5 (81.5) 5 (94.4)
available for high-level disinfection that are
specific to the endoscope models being
used.*

TABLE 6. Continued

Infection control quality measure (%) measure (%) endoscopy unit (%) (%)
Endoscopy unit has policies and procedures in 5 5 (88.9) 5 (85.2) 5 (78.6) 5 (94.4)
place to ensure that reusable medical devices
are cleaned and reprocessed in accordance
with manufacturer’s instructions appropriately
before use in another patient.*
place to identify damaged equipment and
remove that equipment from service.*
Process is in place to maintain a log on the 5 5 (85.2) 5 (84.6) 5 (84.6) 5 (88.9)
successful completion of each key step in
reprocessing, including sufficient patient
demographic information and endoscope
identification for appropriate postprocedure
event.
Endoscopy unit has a specific policy discussing 5 5 (75.0) 5 (85.7) 5 (71.4) 5 (88.9)
the proper use of single-dose medication
vials.
Endoscopy unit has policies and procedures that 5 5 (82.1) 5 (85.7) 5 (70.4) 5 (88.9)
adhere to current ASGE and SGNA guidelines
concerning safety and infection control in
endoscopy.
place to ensure the proper use of devices
marked single use only.
Policy to avoid the use of multidose vials when 5 5 (77.8) 5 (77.8) 5 (74.1) 5 (88.9)
possible and document their appropriate use
when they are used.
Handwashing facilities and alcohol-based hand 5 5 (78.6) 5 (78.6) 5 (85.2) 5 (88.9)
gel are available to patients, visitors, and staff.
Core competencies for personnel involved in 5 5 (85.2) 5 (96.2) 5 (84.6) 5 (88.2)
reprocessing endoscopes are verified initially
and at least annually or when there is an
adverse event or change in endoscopes or
reprocessing equipment.*
Endoscopy unit monitors and records adherence 5 5 (67.9) 5 (60.7) 5 (64.3) 5 (77.8)
to hand hygiene guidelines and provides
feedback to personnel.
Process is in place to document the successful 4 4 (21.4) 4 (32.1) 3.5 (17.9) 4 (22.2)
completion of training in safe injection
practices, and then verification of compliance
of all personnel regarding safe injection
practices on a semiannual basis.
ASGE, American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy; SGNA, Society of Gastroenterology Nurses and Associates.
“Compliance in own endoscopy unit.” These indicators 2 had a median of 3 in the second round of voting. None
tended to concentrate on leadership in the endoscopy of the proposed indicators received “disagreement” or
unit, with a particular emphasis on its structure and “strong disagreement” on any parameter. Additionally, re-
governance, and also focused on quality and meeting spondents deemed that several important indicators were
regulatory requirements. not feasible to measure and that their endoscopy units
Among the 20 original quality indicators that did not were noncompliant. These included the following: that
meet our initial consensus threshold, 10 had a median of the endoscopy unit has a policy for late arriving patients,
5 with less uniformity (<80%), 8 had a median of 4, and wait times for urgent and semiurgent procedures are

tracked, and wait times are communicated to the endos- How should the privileging and credentialing process
copy team and made available to referring physicians. be used to maintain and improve quality in the endos-
Research questions copy unit, and how does this process influence proced-
What methods are there to foster/develop physician and ure outcomes?
administrative endoscopy unit leadership skills? What is the optimal process for endoscopy units to
What methods should be used to identify a “physician maintain and aggregate endoscopist-specific data on
champion” for the endoscopy unit quality program? behalf of individual practitioners?
What methods should be developed to implement a
“quality culture” at all levels of patient care and delivery Safety and infection control
of services within an endoscopy unit? In this domain, 27 quality indicators were originally
How do efficient practices correlate with specific pa- developed and were divided into 2 subdomains: safety
tient satisfaction measures and other procedure- and infection control. These proposed indicators included
related outcomes? issues related to endoscopy equipment and its handling
and issues related to personnel and training in safety and
Procedure-related infection control. Seventeen indicators across both subdo-
In the procedure-related domain, 24 quality indicators mains met our initial consensus threshold. The
were originally developed. This domain was further divided highest-rated 6 indicators from this domain were then
into 3 subdomains: preprocedure, procedure, and postpro- identified (Table 6). Among these 6, all had a median of
cedure. Among these 3 subdomains, 11 quality indicators 5 for the “Meaningful to measure,” “Feasible to measure,”
met our initial consensus threshold. Among the and “Compliance in own endoscopy unit” during round 1
highest-rated 6 indicators in this group, all had a median voting. The core elements of these top 6 indicators
of 5 during the first round of voting for both “Meaningful focused on disinfection and maintenance of endoscopic
to measure” and “Feasible to measure” with only 1 of these equipment and associated devices and the credentialing
indicators not having a median of 5 in the “Compliance in of staff (including physicians and nurses) with regard to
own endoscopy unit” parameter (Table 5). Moreover, moderate sedation.
several themes were observed among these 6 highlighted Among the 10 originally proposed indicators that did
procedure-related quality indicators, which included the not meet our initial consensus definition, 8 had a median
preprocedure processes (eg, preprocedure assessment, of 5 with less uniformity (<80%), and 2 had a median
patient pause/time out) and postprocedure processes of 4 on the second round of voting. None of the pro-
(eg, discharge criteria, pathology specimen reconciliation), posed indicators received strong disagreement on any
assessing and addressing physician competence, and qual- parameter. Importantly, nearly all of the proposed
ity measurement and improvement. quality indicators were rated highly with respect to the
Among the 13 originally proposed quality indicators that “Related to quality” parameter on both rounds of voting,
did not meet our initial consensus threshold, 11 had a me- and most respondents reported compliance within their
dian of 5 with less uniformity (<80%) with 2 having a me- own endoscopy units, showing that indicators of high-
dian of 4.5 on the second round of voting. None of the quality safety and infection control practices in endo-
potential indicators in the procedure-related domain scopic facilities are now well recognized and being
received ratings of neutral, disagreement, or strong practiced.
disagreement on any of the 4 measured parameters. Addi- Several indicators were judged to be of significant
tionally, an overwhelming majority of proposed procedure- importance, but ultimately were thought to be less feasible
related quality indicators scored highly as they related to to measure and were among those that were rated lower in
quality, meaningfulness, and feasibility with most respon- terms of compliance. Indicators in this category included
dents reporting that their endoscopy units were currently the following: mechanisms are in place to contact patients
compliant with all of these indicators. Yet, 2 main areas regarding any adverse event after a procedure, and
scored lower in terms of endoscopy units currently being tracking the rate of unplanned admissions/emergency
compliant with proposed indicators: (1) assessing compe- rooms visits for patients who had undergone a colonos-
tence of endoscopists, specifically having a process in place copy. It was well recognized that some safety and infection
to detect and address endoscopists’ competence and per- control indicators may be clearly of significance, and
forming peer review of procedures by endoscopists, and deemed to be meaningful, but ranked as not feasible to
(2) measuring the rate of scheduled procedures cancelled/ be put into easy practice and therefore possibly limited
rescheduled by both the patient and the provider. in practical application.
Research questions Research questions
What is the exact rate of mislabeled specimens obtained What systems can be incorporated into the current data
in endoscopic procedures? collection programs (eg, endoscopy report–generating
What is the optimal and efficient method for collecting software) to capture essential indicators on safety and
data on procedure quality indicators? infection control without undue burden?

How would vendor participation in designing and main- patients’ perspective), which are now recognized to be
taining systems for capturing essential indicators on an increasingly important element of validity.20 For
safety and infection control improve data collection? example, a recent meta-analysis identified that most
What is/are the best method(s) for capturing informa- studies have varied between a focus on the generation of
tion on delayed adverse events? new endoscopy-specific patient experience measures
What is/are the best approach(es) to collate, trend and versus modification or validity testing of existing measures,
remediate adverse events? and that most patient experience measures are derived
What is/are the best method(s) for tracking and trend- from a clinician’s perspective.21 Finally, although it is
ing unplanned admissions/emergency room visits after important to ensure that patients have a positive
procedures? healthcare experience, it does remain unclear whether
higher patient satisfaction results in better outcomes for
patients.22 In the future, other measures of patient
DISCUSSION satisfaction and experience will likely be developed and
be correlated with accepted quality outcomes in
Through a comprehensive process that consisted of an endoscopy. Finally, future work will need to focus on
extensive literature review and soliciting expert opinion, developing and validating interventions aimed at
155 proposed endoscopy unit quality indicators were improving the patient experience in endoscopy units.
developed. These proposed quality indicators spanned 5
domains, which included patient experience, employee
experience, efficiency and operations, procedure-related Employee experience
endoscopy unit issues, and safety and infection control. Although patient satisfaction is well accepted as a quality
Subsequently, to reach consensus on which indicators to metric in medicine, employee engagement and experience
include in this guideline a modified Delphi method was has been less well explored. Existing literature in the
used and identified 29 quality indicators related to the healthcare and nonhealthcare industries demonstrates a
quality of an endoscopy unit. This represents the first effort direct and positive relationship between patient/customer
in which quality indicators have been identified for U.S. experience and employee engagement and performance.
endoscopy units, and it serves as a tool by which endos- In healthcare, overall employee workplace experience
copy units can begin to measure and improve their quality, has tangible consequences, including the successful
initiate the process of benchmarking these indicators, and recruitment and retention of skilled employees. Further-
further determine which indicators are closely aligned with more, the link between employee engagement and
patient outcomes. patient satisfaction ultimately affects the quality of patient
care.23-48 Research published by well-known organizations,
Patient experience including Gallup and Press Ganey, demonstrates the direct
Consistent with the national adoption of patient experi- correlation between patient and employee experience.
ence indicators and reporting mechanisms, numerous However, to date, there are limited studies that identify
studies of patient satisfaction and experience have been specific indicators measuring employee experience in GI
performed to assess their correlation with variables of and endoscopy unit settings in the United States.37,40,49-54
care. Through this work a number of factors have been Much of the literature on employee experience in health-
associated with greater patient satisfaction in endoscopy care has examined promoting high-level leadership prac-
units. Such factors include the staff’s personal manner, tices,55 having a strong relationship with and support
technical skill of the endoscopist, endoscopy unit environ- from managerial staff, organizational commitment,56,57
ment, clear communication from the endoscopist both work content that is valued by the employee, and work-
before and after the procedure, and prompt access to place environment.58,59 Improvements in these areas leads
endoscopic services.17,18 Additionally, the importance of to improved staff retention, less absenteeism, improved
pain control and patient experience at an endoscopy unit team communication, and greater patient satisfaction.
has been widely reported, with the correlation between Our current study provides one of the first attempts to
the 2 varying among studies. In fact, recent data suggest identify quality indicators as they pertain to employee
a surprising inverse relationship between patient comfort experience in the endoscopy unit and builds on many of
and dosing of moderate sedation, but directly correlated these key concepts noted in the literature. Key indicators
with outcomes of adenoma detection and cecal intubation identified through our approach highlight that staff
rates.19 Many of the quality indicators identified in this empowerment through meetings; ongoing performance
guideline serve to monitor and measure many of these evaluations; and training that is continuous, team-based,
factors with the goal of ultimately improving them. and modified on the basis of staff feedback are essential
At the same time, none of the studies on patient expe- to measure, track, and improve on within the endoscopy
rience have developed or evaluated patient-reported unit. By measuring employee experience, an endoscopy
outcome or experience measures (ie, generated from the unit can better understand and implement strategies to

improve employee, and therefore patient, experience and improved safety outcomes have been demonstrated for
thus the overall quality of the unit. performing a patient pause/time-out immediately before
the beginning of a procedure71-75; and the use of validated,
Efficiency and operations standardized discharge criteria has documented benefits in
In the current healthcare environment, value is best safely discharging patients home after a procedure.76-79
defined by the delivery of efficient and high-quality health- Likewise, intraprocedural quality indicators have been
care. Although the study of efficiency has been the focus of enumerated; monitoring1-3,5 and communicating80 data
management in many industries, incorporating efficiency on quality indicators to providers performing endoscopic
models into healthcare has occurred only recently. In the procedures has resulted in improved quality and reduced
United States there are few evidence-based publications practice variation among providers. Not surprisingly,
evaluating operations and efficiency in GI endoscopy60-62 some of the highest-rated indicators in the procedure-
and only 1 of these was performed during a time period related domain from our study correlated with work
that represents the current environment of endoscopic from the published literature. However, much of the liter-
practice in the United States. These articles; an expert, ature on procedure-related quality indicators for endos-
opinion-based review article63; and previous operations copy units is based on expert opinion. Areas such as
research conducted by the ASGE and the Medical Group privileging and credentialing for performing proced-
Management Association provided the foundation that ures,4,12,81-85 obtaining/documenting informed consent,6,10
was used to develop the categories within the domain of performing a preprocedure assessment,4,86,87 and
efficiency and operations. Our indicators offer the first providing discharge instructions to patients,4,10 although
attempt to expand on and refine this expert opinion and identified as important procedure-related quality indica-
also construct a framework by which endoscopy units tors, have no patient outcomes-related data available to
can begin to more consistently measure and track their date. This void in robust studies examining outcomes
operations management and efficiency. Having a defined with regard to procedure-related quality indicators high-
and inclusive leadership with a focus on meeting lights the need for continued research in this area.
regulatory requirements with regard to space and
operations appeared to be areas of greatest agreement
among respondents in our study. Given that these Safety and infection control
quality indicators and the majority of others in this Safety and infection control are of paramount impor-
domain were process measures with little supporting tance to the overall success and efficacy of GI endoscopy.
data from the literature, future studies aimed at Consequently, performance assessment of endoscopic
developing more outcome-based indicators are needed. units must include measures designed to evaluate these
elements. Infections related to GI endoscopy are rare
Procedure-related events, and most have been related to breaches in estab-
There has been a dramatic rise in the request for GI spe- lished protocols for handling and reprocessing endoscopes.
cialty care in the United States, in particular endoscopic In line with this and concordant with ASGE guidelines, indi-
services, over the past 3 decades.64-66 In parallel, multiple cators deemed of highest importance in the safety and
quality indicators for various endoscopic procedures have infection control domain were related to the proper training
been identified.1-5 However, these indicators have been of staff and having policies and processes in place to ensure
focused on individual providers and specific procedures maintenance of adequate infection control in the endos-
rather than on how they relate to or impact the endoscopy copy unit. Safety and infection control in endoscopic facil-
unit. Our study addressed this observation by focusing on ities have been the topic of many reviews and
procedure-related indicators and how they impact the guidelines88,89 and recently have been the focus of media
quality of an endoscopy unit. From our data we discovered headlines, with patients experiencing carbapenem-
several important indicators in the preprocedure, intrapro- resistant Enterobacteriaceae infections after undergoing
cedure, and postprocedure processes in the endoscopy ERCP.90 Multiple individual guidelines exist on infection
unit. control in endoscopy,91 adequate room staffing,92
Few studies are available that have examined procedure- sedation in endoscopy,87 and quality indicators in GI
related quality indicators for endoscopy units. Further- endoscopy.4 Although several guidelines in this area exist,
more, indicators that have been reported in this domain in general many requirements for safety and infection
are overwhelmingly process measures with little support- control have little supporting outcomes data. Instead,
ing data. Much of the literature on procedure-related qual- such recommendations come from consensus by experts
ity indicators has focused on aspects of the preprocedure with experience in the safe delivery of care in the GI
and postprocedure process. For example, documenting endoscopy setting. Continued work in this area will likely
and performing endoscopic procedures for an appropriate be centered on the development and study of more
indication increases the diagnostic yield of findings outcome-based indicators, with supporting benchmark
during endoscopy and decreases inappropriate use67-70; data to help guide improvement work in endoscopy units.

PRIORITY INDICATORS FOR A HIGH-QUALITY indicators should be considered a starting point from
ENDOSCOPY UNIT which an endoscopy unit could build on during ongoing
quality improvement efforts.
This guideline provides the first comprehensive list of
quality indicators for U.S. endoscopy units. Our rigorous
LIMITATIONS
process of examining the available literature, leveraging
the knowledge of experts in the field, and soliciting feedback
Several limitations exist with our method. Selection bias
from endoscopy unit stakeholders yielded 155 indicators
was present because respondents were a highly motivated
across 5 key domains, of which we discuss 29 of the
and engaged group. Although patients and payers were
highest-rated indicators. Yet, given the large number of qual-
invited to participate, our voting sample did not include
ity indicators proposed, we wanted to highlight 5 endoscopy
these representatives. Moreover, our response rate of
unit quality indicators from among this list that were consid-
22.2% is low and can impact the generalizability of our
ered the most compelling to measure and track for a high-
results. Our respondents’ interpretation of whether an
quality endoscopy unit. The taskforce selected these priority
indicator was related to quality may have been influenced
indicators using the following criteria:
by their own endoscopy units’ experience and compliance.
Existing support in the literature for an association with
Our proposed indicators do not establish formal measure
improved patient outcomes
definitions or performance thresholds. The latter is
Consensus among the taskforce members that perfor-
currently limited because of the lack of adequate methods
mance gaps and variation existed
for benchmarking these parameters in practices across the
These 5 priority endoscopy unit quality indicators
country. The majority of the quality indicators included in
include:
the study were process and structural measures; many
Endoscopy unit has a defined leadership structure.
require development of systems for data gathering and
Endoscopy unit has regular education, training pro-
tracking. We acknowledge and anticipate variability in mea-
grams, and continuous quality improvement for all staff
surement across different practice settings. Last, many of
on new equipment/devices and endoscopic techniques.
the quality indicators in the survey received high ratings
Endoscopy unit records, tracks, and monitors proced-
that ultimately did not meet our predefined consensus
ure quality indicators for both the endoscopy unit and
threshold; it is for this reason that all potential endoscopy
individual endoscopists.
unit quality indicators queried appear in the tables.
Procedure reports are communicated to referring pro-
viders, and a process is in place for patients to receive
a copy of their endoscopy report. CONCLUSION
Process is in place to track each specific endoscope
from storage, use, reprocessing, and back to storage. A lack of information on the performance variation
These priority indicators reflect the key elements of a among endoscopy departments, and the lack of a current
high-quality endoscopy unit, and several of them span organizational framework by which endoscopy units
many of the domains discussed in this guideline. First, can direct their quality improvement efforts, suggest a
ensuring that a defined leadership is in place helps to pro- need for evidence-based quality indicators targeted at the
mote high-performance leadership and organizational endoscopy unit level. Using the Delphi method to establish
commitment, which not only magnifies efficiency and consensus among leaders in U.S. endoscopy units, we eval-
operations of the endoscopy unit but advances staff expe- uated proposed indicators for endoscopy unit quality. This
rience. Second, promoting education and training among survey, the first of its kind in the United States, was
staff and endoscopists, and monitoring and providing feed- comprehensive in scope and rigorous in design. The
back on their performance, not only stimulates profes- consensus process identified 29 quality indicators related
sional development but helps ensure that patients to the quality of an endoscopy unit among 5 domains
undergoing endoscopic procedures are receiving high- that included patient experience, employee experience,
quality and safe care. Third, communication with patients efficiency and operations, procedure-related, and safety
and referring providers about a patient’s care within the and infection control. Five priority endoscopy unit quality
endoscopy unit helps foster a more patient-centered envi- indicators were identified as the most compelling to mea-
ronment, thereby improving the patient experience and sure and track for a high-quality endoscopy unit.
improves transitions in care. Finally, embedded within a The intent for disseminating this information is to
high-quality endoscopy unit is a culture of safety and guide endoscopy units in their efforts to assess and
high standards for infection control; central to this theme improve quality by identifying those areas currently
are practices and policies along with monitoring related deemed most important to measure. Future efforts
to endoscope reprocessing. Although these elements are should include maturation of the indicators into formal
the foundation of a high-quality endoscopy unit, they are measures and development of appropriate tools to cap-
by no means complete and all-inclusive. These priority ture these types of quality data. As the capability to record

and track these endoscopy unit quality indicators grows 18. Sewitch MJ, Gong S, Dube C, et al. A literature review of quality in
over time we will learn which parameters are most closely lower gastrointestinal endoscopy from the patient perspective. Can J
Gastroenterol 2011;25:681-5.
linked to important patient outcomes. We will also be 19. Ekkelenkamp VE, Dowler K, Valori RM, et al. Patient comfort and quality
able to apply the same principles of quality improvement in colonoscopy. World J Gastroenterol 2013;19:2355-61.
using these data on endoscopy unit performance that are 20. Dawson J, Doll H, Fitzpatrick R, et al. The routine use of patient re-
currently used to improve endoscopic procedure-related ported outcome measures in healthcare settings. BMJ 2010;340:c186.
outcomes. 21. Brown S, Bevan R, Rubin G, et al. Patient-derived measures of GI endos-
copy: a meta-narrative review of the literature. Gastrointest Endosc
This document was reviewed and approved by the gov- 2015;81:1130-40; e1-9.
erning board of the American Society for Gastrointestinal 22. Fenton JJ, Jerant AF, Bertakis KD, et al. The cost of satisfaction: a na-
Endoscopy (ASGE) and was reviewed and endorsed by tional study of patient satisfaction, health care utilization, expendi-
the Society of Gastroenterology Nurses and Associates tures, and mortality. Arch Intern Med 2012;172:405-11.
(SGNA). 23. American Medical Group Association, “The AMGA Employee
Satisfaction and Engagement Benchmarking Program.” Available at:
http://www.powershow.com/view1/2577ed-ZDc1Z/The_AMGA_Employee_
Satisfaction_and_Engagement_Benchmarking_Program_powerpoint_ppt_
DISCLOSURE
presentation. Accessed May 1, 2015.
24. Bersin J. Becoming irresistible: a new model for employee engage-
Dr Valori is a director of Quality Solutions for Health- ment. Available at: https://dupress.deloitte.com/dup-us-en/deloitte-
care LLP and of Anderval Ltd. All other authors disclosed review/issue-16/employee-engagement-strategies.html. Accessed March
no financial relationships relevant to this publication. 20, 2015.
25. Bullseye Business Solutions Small Business Advisory Toolkit. Table of
key performance indicators. Bullseye Business Solutions, 2006.
REFERENCES 26. Burger J. Why Hospitals Must Surpass Patient Expectations. GALLUP
Business Journal, May 1, 2014. Available at: www.gallup.com/
1. Adler DG, Lieb JG, 2nd, Cohen J, et al. Quality indicators for ERCP. businessjournal/168737/why-hosiptals-surpass-pateint experience. Ac-
Gastrointest Endosc 2015;81:54-66. cessed March 20, 2015.
2. Park WG, Shaheen NJ, Cohen J, et al. Quality indicators for EGD. 27. Cataldo P. Focusing on employee engagement: how to measure it and
Gastrointest Endosc 2015;81:17-30. improve it. Available at: https://www.kenan-flagler.unc.edu/executive-
3. Rex DK, Schoenfeld PS, Cohen J, et al. Quality indicators for colonos- development/about/w/media/E93A57C2D74F4E578A8B1012E70A56FD.
copy. Gastrointest Endosc 2015;81:31-53. ashx. Accessed March 20, 2015.
4. Rizk MK, Sawhney MS, Cohen J, et al. Quality indicators common to all 28. Collins KS, Collins SK, McKinnies R, et al. Employee satisfaction and
GI endoscopic procedures. Gastrointest Endosc 2015;81:3-16. employee retention: catalysts to patient satisfaction. Health Care Man-
5. Wani S, Wallace MB, Cohen J, et al. Quality indicators for EUS. Gastro- ag (Frederick) 2008;27:245-51.
intest Endosc 2015;81:67-80. 29. Cornerstone On Demand, “The challenging state of employee engage-
6. Global Rating Scale. Available at: http://www.globalratingscale.com. ment in healthcare today - and strategies to improve it”. Available at:
Accessed May 5, 2015. http://www.cornerstoneondemand.com/sites/default/files/whitepaper/
7. Williams T, Ross A, Stirling C, et al. Validation of the Global Rating Scale csod-wp-healthcare-employee-engagement-012015.pdf. Accessed on
for endoscopy. Scott Med J 2013;58:20-1. May 1, 2015.
8. Sint Nicolaas J, de Jonge V, de Man RA, et al. The Global Rating Scale in 30. Custom Insight. Industry-specific benchmarks and employee engage-
clinical practice: a comprehensive quality assurance programme for ment. July 24, 2013. Available at: http://www.custominsight.com/
endoscopy departments. Dig Liver Dis 2012;44:919-24. employee-engagement-survey/industry-benchmarks.asp. Accessed
9. Sint Nicolaas J, de Jonge V, Korfage IJ, et al. Benchmarking patient ex- May 1, 2015.
periences in colonoscopy using the Global Rating Scale. Endoscopy 31. Dale Carnegie Training Whitepaper. What drives employee engage-
2012;44:462-72. ment and why it matters. October 2012. Available at: http://www.
10. Armstrong D, Barkun A, Bridges R, et al. Canadian Association of dalecarnegie.co.za/assets/229/7/driveengagement_101612_wp.pdf.
Gastroenterology consensus guidelines on safety and quality indica- Accessed May 1, 2015.
tors in endoscopy. Can J Gastroenterol 2012;26:17-31. 32. Fassel D. Building better performance. Health Forum J 2003;46:44-5.
11. MacIntosh D, Dube C, Hollingworth R, et al. The endoscopy Global Rat- 33. Fortune Magazine and Great Place to Work. “100 Best Companies to
ing Scale-Canada: development and implementation of a quality Work For in 2015.” Available at: http://fortune.com/best-companies.
improvement tool. Can J Gastroenterol 2013;27:74-82. Accessed June 4, 2015.
12. Petersen BT. Quality assurance for endoscopists. Best Pract Res Clin 34. Worldwide 13% of employees are engaged at work. Gallup World.
Gastroenterol 2011;25:349-60. Available at: http://www.gallup.com/poll/165269/worldwide-employees-
13. Helmer-Hirschberg O. The use of the Delphi technique in problems of engaged-work.aspx. Accessed May 1, 2015.
educational innovations. Santa Monica, CA: Rand; 1966. 35. Harter JK, Schmidt FL, Agrawal S, et al. The relationship between
14. Dalkey NC, Helmer-Hirschberg O. An experimental application of the engagement at work and organizational outcomes. Available at:
Delphi method to the use of experts. Santa Monica, CA: Rand; 1962. http://employeeengagement.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/2012-
15. Delbecq AL, Van de Ven AH, Gustafson DH. Group techniques for pro- Q12-Meta-Analysis-Research-Paper.pdf. Accessed March 20, 2015.
gram planning: A guide to nominal group and delphi processes. Mid- 36. Harter JK, Schmidt FL, Hayes TL. Business-unit-level relationship be-
dleton, WI: Green Briar Press; 1975. tween employee satisfaction, employee engagement, and business
16. Nair R, Aggarwal R, Khanna D. Methods of formal consensus in classi- outcomes: a meta-analysis. J Appl Psychol 2002;87:268-79.
fication/diagnostic criteria and guideline development. Semin Arthritis 37. Leonard D. Putting success in succession planning: the role of learning and
Rheum 2011;41:95-105. development.” University of North Carolina Business School, April 2013.
17. Ko HH, Zhang H, Telford JJ, et al. Factors influencing patient satisfac- Available at: http://www.kenan-flagler.unc.edu/executive-development/
tion when undergoing endoscopic procedures. Gastrointest Endosc custom-programs/”media/Files/documents/executive-development/
2009;69:883-91. success-in-succession-planning.ashx. Accessed May 1, 2015.

38. Lowe G. How employee engagement matters for hospital perfor- 60. Day LW, Belson D, Dessouky M, et al. Optimizing efficiency and oper-
mance. Healthc Q 2012;15:29-39. ations at a California safety-net endoscopy center: a modeling and
39. Marketing Innovators International, White Paper. The effects of simulation approach. Gastrointest Endosc 2014;80:762-73.
employee satisfaction on company financial performance. Marketing 61. Harewood GC, Chrysostomou K, Himy N, et al. A “time-and-motion”
Innovators International, 2005. study of endoscopic practice: strategies to enhance efficiency. Gastro-
40. Metcalf R, Tate R. Shared governance in the endoscopy department. intest Endosc 2008;68:1043-50.
Gastroenterol Nurs 1995;18:96-9. 62. Yong E, Zenkova O, Saibil F, et al. Efficiency of an endoscopy suite in a
41. Mulhern F, Bolger B. People performance management: the science teaching hospital: delays, prolonged procedures, and hospital waiting
that supports soft metrics. Available at: http://businessfinancemag. times. Gastrointest Endosc 2006;64:760-4.
com/business-performance-management/people-performance-manag 63. Pike IM, Vicari J. Incorporating quality measurement and improvement
ement-science-supports-soft-metrics. Accessed March 20, 2015. into a gastroenterology practice. Am J Gastroenterol 2010;105:252-4.
42. Peltier J, Dahl A. The relationship between employee satisfaction and 64. Bohra S, Byrne MF, Manning D, et al. A prospective analysis of inpatient
hospital patient experiences. Forum for People Performance Man- consultations to a gastroenterology service. Ir Med J 2003;96:263-5.
agement and Measurement. Available at: http://www.info-now. 65. Cai Q, Bruno CJ, Hagedorn CH, et al. Temporal trends over ten years in
com/typo3conf/ext/p2wlib/pi1/press2web/html/userimg/FORUM/Hospital formal inpatient gastroenterology consultations at an inner city hospi-
%20Study%20-Relationship%20Btwn%20Emp.%20Satisfaction%20and tal. J Clin Gastroenterol 2003;36:34-8.
%20Pt.%20Experiences.pdf. Accessed March 20, 2015. 66. Jordan MR, Conley J, Ghali WA. Consultation patterns and clinical cor-
43. Press Ganey Associates. Performance insights, every voice matters: the relates of consultation in a tertiary care setting. BMC Res Notes 2008;1:
bottom line on employee and physician engagement, April 23, 2014. 96.
Available at: pginfo@pressganey.com. Accessed March 23, 2015. 67. Bersani G, Rossi A, Ricci G, et al. Do ASGE guidelines for the appropriate
44. Public Services Health & Safety Association. Stakeholder consultation use of colonoscopy enhance the probability of finding relevant pathol-
paper: potential health and safe workplace indicators for Ontario’s ogies in an open access service? Dig Liver Dis 2005;37:609-14.
health care system. Public Services Health & Safety Association, 68. ASGE Standards of Practice Committee; Early DS, Ben-Menachem T,
January 2013. et al. Appropriate use of GI endoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc 2012;75:
45. Pund LE, Sklar P. Linking quality assurance to human resources: 1127-31.
improving patient satisfaction by improving employee satisfaction. 69. de Bosset V, Froehlich F, Rey JP, et al. Do explicit appropriateness
Available at: https://spea.indiana.edu/doc/undergraduate/ugrd_ criteria enhance the diagnostic yield of colonoscopy? Endoscopy
thesis2012_hmp_pund.pdf. Accessed May 1, 2015. 2002;34:360-8.
46. Rabinowitz R. Expert incite: Focus on these 5 engagement drivers 70. Froehlich F, Repond C, Mullhaupt B, et al. Is the diagnostic yield of up-
to boost your HCAHPS scores. The Advisory Board, March 15, 2015. per GI endoscopy improved by the use of explicit panel-based appro-
Available at: http://www.advisory.com/research/hr-advancement- priateness criteria? Gastrointest Endosc 2000;52:333-41.
center/expert-insights/2015/engagement-drivers-to-improve-hcahps- 71. Haynes AB, Weiser TG, Berry WR, et al. A surgical safety checklist to
scores. Accessed June 4, 2015. reduce morbidity and mortality in a global population. N Engl J Med
47. Verma A. Whitepaper: Designing and measuring human capital key 2009;360:491-9.
performance indicators: the balanced scorecard approach. Tata 72. Howell AM, Panesar SS, Burns EM, et al. Reducing the burden of surgi-
Consultancy Services. Available at: www.tcs.com/resources/white_ cal harm: a systematic review of the interventions used to reduce
papers?Pages/Designing-Measuring-Human-Capital. Accessed May 1, adverse events in surgery. Ann Surg 2014;259:630-41.
2015. 73. Lepanluoma M, Takala R, Kotkansalo A, et al. Surgical safety checklist is
48. West JS. Engaged or disengaged? That is the question. National Busi- associated with improved operating room safety culture, reduced
ness Research Institute, Inc. Available at: www.nbrii.com/pdf/ wound complications, and unplanned readmissions in a pilot study
employee. Accessed March 21, 2015. in neurosurgery. Scand J Surg 2014;103:66-72.
49. De Jonoge VKEJ, van Leerdam ME. Quality assurance in the endoscopy unit: 74. Lyons VE, Popejoy LL. Meta-analysis of surgical safety checklist effects
the view of endoscopy personnel. Frontline Gastroenterol 2012;3:115-20. on teamwork, communication, morbidity, mortality, and safety. West J
50. Greenwald B. How the gastroenterology nurse can establish and meet Nurs Res 2014;36:245-61.
career goals. Gastroenterol Nurs 2006;29:291-4. 75. Pugel AE, Simianu VV, Flum DR, et al. Use of the surgical safety check-
51. Hobgood E. Leading the way: walking in a nurse’s shoes. Gastroenterol list to improve communication and reduce complications. J Infect Pub-
Nurs 2003;26:215-8. lic Health 2015;8:219-25.
52. Lee CK, Park DI, Lee SH, et al. Participation by experienced endoscopy 76. Aldrete JA. The post-anesthesia recovery score revisited. J Clin Anesth
nurses increases the detection rate of colon polyps during a screening 1995;7:89-91.
colonoscopy: a multicenter, prospective, randomized study. Gastroint- 77. Chernik DA, Gillings D, Laine H, et al. Validity and reliability of the Ob-
est Endosc 2011;74:1094-102. server’s Assessment of Alertness/Sedation Scale: study with intrave-
53. Salmore R. Praise as a means to increase job satisfaction. Gastroenterol nous midazolam. J Clin Psychopharmacol 1990;10:244-51.
Nurs 1990;13:98-100. 78. Trevisani L, Cifala V, Gilli G, et al. Post-anaesthetic discharge scoring
54. Schaffner M. They is we. Gastroenterol Nurs 2009;32:121-2. system to assess patient recovery and discharge after colonoscopy.
55. Coomber B, Barriball KL. Impact of job satisfaction components on World J Gastrointest Endosc 2013;5:502-7.
intent to leave and turnover for hospital-based nurses: a review of 79. White PF, Song D. New criteria for fast-tracking after outpatient anes-
the research literature. Int J Nurs Stud 2007;44:297-314. thesia: a comparison with the modified Aldrete’s scoring system.
56. Moneke N, Umeh OJ. Factors influencing critical care nurses’ percep- Anesth Analg 1999;88:1069-72.
tion of their overall job satisfaction: an empirical study. J Nurs Adm 80. de Jonge V, Sint Nicolaas J, Cahen DL, et al. Quality evaluation of co-
2013;43:201-7. lonoscopy reporting and colonoscopy performance in daily clinical
57. Moneke N, Umeh OJ. How leadership behaviors impact critical care practice. Gastrointest Endosc 2012;75:98-106.
nurse job satisfaction. Nurs Manage 2013;44:53-5. 81. Beller GA, Winters WL, Jr, Carver JR, et al. 28th Bethesda Conference.
58. Irvine DM, Evans MG. Job satisfaction and turnover among nurses: Task Force 3: Guidelines for credentialing practicing physicians. J Am
integrating research findings across studies. Nurs Res 1995;44:246-53. Coll Cardiol 1997;29:1148-62.
59. Atefi N, Abdullah KL, Wong LP, et al. Factors influencing registered 82. Eisen GM, Baron TH, Dominitz JA, et al. Methods of granting hospital
nurses perception of their overall job satisfaction: a qualitative study. privileges to perform gastrointestinal endoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc
Int Nurs Rev 2014;61:352-60. 2002;55:780-3.

83. Ensuring competence in endoscopy. Available at: http://www.asge.org/ 88. ASGE Quality Assurance in Endoscopy Committee; Petersen BT, Chennat
clinicalpractice/clinical-practice. Accessed June 26, 2015. J, Cohen J, et al. Multisociety guideline on reprocessing flexible gastro-
84. Houghton A. Variation in outcome of surgical procedures. Br J Surg intestinal endoscopes: 2011. Gastrointest Endosc 2011;73:1075-84.
1994;81:653-60. 89. ASGE Ensuring Safety in the Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Unit Task Force;
85. ASGE Standards of Practice Committee; Dominitz JA, Ikenberry SO, An- Calderwood AH, Chapman FJ, Cohen J, et al. Guidelines for safety in the
derson MA, et al. Renewal of and proctoring for endoscopic privileges. gastrointestinal endoscopy unit. Gastrointest Endosc 2014;79:363-72.
Gastrointest Endosc 2008;67:10-6. 90. Muscarella LF. Risk of transmission of carbapenem-resistant Enterobac-
86. ASGE Standards of Practice Committee; Apfelbaum JL, Connis RT, Nick- teriaceae and related “superbugs” during gastrointestinal endoscopy.
inovich DG, et al. Practice advisory for preanesthesia evaluation: an up- World J Gastrointest Endosc 2014;6:457-74.
dated report by the American Society of Anesthesiologists Task Force 91. ASGE Standards of Practice Committee; Banerjee S, Shen B, et al.
on Preanesthesia Evaluation. Anesthesiology 2012;116:522-38. Infection control during GI endoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc
87. Standards of Practice Committee of the American Society for 2008;67:781-90.
Gastrointestinal Endoscopy; Lichtenstein DR, Jagannath S, Baron 92. ASGE Standards of Practice Committee; Jain R, Ikenberry SO, et al. Min-
TH, et al. Sedation and anesthesia in GI endoscopy. Gastrointest imum staffing requirements for the performance of GI endoscopy.
Endosc 2008;68:815-26. Gastrointest Endosc 2010;72:469-70.

Quality Indicators For Gastrointestinal Endos

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Quality Indicators For Gastrointestinal Endos

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Quality Indicators For Gastrointestinal Endos

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

GUIDELINE

Quality indicators for gastrointestinal endoscopy units

INTRODUCTION ﬁcation and adoption for use in other countries across

www.VideoGIE.org Volume 2, No. 6 : 2017 VIDEOGIE 119

120 VIDEOGIE Volume 2, No. 6 : 2017 www.VideoGIE.org

Patient Employee Safety and

Invited, n 107 90 93 102 103 495

www.VideoGIE.org Volume 2, No. 6 : 2017 VIDEOGIE 121

1st round voting (n [ 27), median (%), 2nd round voting

Communication needs are recorded as 5 5 (64.7) 4.5 (50.0) 4 (22.9) 5 (80.0)

Related to Meaningful to Feasible to Compliance in own Related to quality

Patients are informed of their appointment 5 5 (79.4) 5 (79.4) 5 (75.8) 5 (85.0)

Related to Meaningful to Feasible to Compliance in own Related to quality

Signatures are obtained on a consent form 5 5 (82.4) 5 (91.2) 5 (87.5) 5 (95.0)

122 VIDEOGIE Volume 2, No. 6 : 2017 www.VideoGIE.org

Related to Meaningful to Feasible to Compliance in own Related to quality

Published written patient information sheet 5 5 (52.9) 5 (57.7) 5 (50.0) 5 (65.0)

Related to Meaningful to Feasible to Compliance in own Related to quality

Related to Meaningful to Feasible to Compliance in own Related to quality

Procedure reports are communicated to 5 5 (90.9) 5 (87.9) 5 (72.7) 5 (95.0)

Postprocedure communication/coordination Related to Meaningful to Feasible to Compliance in own Related to quality

Patients receive discharge instructions that 5 5 (87.9) 5 (84.9) 5 (81.8) 5 (90.0)

www.VideoGIE.org Volume 2, No. 6 : 2017 VIDEOGIE 123

Postprocedure communication/coordination Related to Meaningful to Feasible to Compliance in own Related to quality

Communication of results to the patient and/or 5 5 (81.8) 5 (78.8) 5 (68.8) 5 (85.0)

Related to Meaningful to Feasible to Compliance in own Related to quality

Endoscopy unit maintains a written disaster 5 5 (78.8) 5 (84.9) 5 (87.9) 5 (87.9)

Related to Meaningful to Feasible to Compliance in own Related to quality

Endoscopy unit has a person or committee 5 5 (78.1) 5 (78.1) 5 (64.5) 5 (85.0)

124 VIDEOGIE Volume 2, No. 6 : 2017 www.VideoGIE.org

Related to Meaningful to Feasible to Compliance in own Related to quality

www.VideoGIE.org Volume 2, No. 6 : 2017 VIDEOGIE 125

1st round voting (n [ 38), median (%), 2nd round voting

Employee orientation process is in place 5 5 (64.1) 5 (66.7) 5 (65.8) 5 (70.0)

Related to Meaningful to Feasible to Compliance in own Related to quality

Related to Meaningful to Feasible to Compliance in own Related to quality

Employee recognition program is in place. 4 4 (34.2) 4 (39.5) 4 (42.1) 4 (36.7)

Related to Meaningful to Feasible to Compliance in own Related to quality

Organization provides continuing education 5 5 (61.5) 5 (56.4) 4 (43.2) 5 (63.3)

Related to Meaningful to Feasible to Compliance in own Related to quality

126 VIDEOGIE Volume 2, No. 6 : 2017 www.VideoGIE.org

Related to Meaningful to Feasible to Compliance in own Related to quality

Employee satisfaction survey results 4 4 (36.1) 4 (33.3) 4 (14.7) 5 (55.2)

Related to Meaningful to Feasible to Compliance in own Related to quality

Employees receive individualized performance 5 5 (70.3) 5 (69.4) 5 (62.9) 5 (82.8)

Related to Meaningful to Feasible to Compliance in own Related to quality

Endoscopy unit has regular education, 5 5 (76.3) 5 (63.2) 5 (51.4) 5 (90.0)

www.VideoGIE.org Volume 2, No. 6 : 2017 VIDEOGIE 127

1st round voting (n [ 35), median (%), 2nd round voting

Endoscopy unit has a defined leadership 5 5 (66.7) 5 (83.3) 5 (77.8) 5 (92.0)

Related to Meaningful to Feasible to Compliance in own Related to quality

Endoscopy unit adheres to regulatory 5 5 (83.3) 5 (83.3) 5 (91.7) 5 (87.5)

128 VIDEOGIE Volume 2, No. 6 : 2017 www.VideoGIE.org

Related to Meaningful to Feasible to Compliance in own Related to quality

Rate of “no shows” and canceled 4 5 (52.8) 5 (66.7) 5 (52.8) 5 (56.0)

Related to Meaningful to Feasible to Compliance in own Related to quality

www.VideoGIE.org Volume 2, No. 6 : 2017 VIDEOGIE 129

1st round voting (n [ 30), median (%), 2nd round voting