User login
Health care providers performing esophageal manometry should keep in mind eight new quality measures listed and validated in a recent study published in the April issue of Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology (Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2015 Oct 20. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2015.10.006), which researchers believe will significantly improve the performance of esophageal manometry and interpretation of data culled from such procedures.
“Despite its critical importance in the diagnosis and management of esophageal motility disorders, features of a high-quality esophageal manometry [study] have not been formally defined,” said the study authors, led by Dr. Rena Yadlapati of Northwestern University in Chicago. “Standardizing key aspects of esophageal manometry is imperative to ensure the delivery of high-quality care.”
SOURCE: AMERICAN GASTROENTEROLOGICAL ASSOCIATION
Dr. Yadlapati and her coinvestigators carried out the study in accordance with guidelines set out by the RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method (RAM), They began by recruiting a panel of 15 esophageal manometry experts with leadership, geographical diversity, and a wide range of practice settings being the key criteria in their selection.
Investigators then conducted a literature review, selecting the 30 most relevant randomized, controlled trials, retrospective studies, and systematic reviews from the past 10 years. From this review, investigators created a list of 30 possible quality measures, all of which were then sent to each member of the expert panel via email for them to rank on a 9-point interval scale, and modify if necessary.
Those rankings were then used to determine the appropriateness of each proposed quality measure at a face-to-face meeting among the investigators and the 15-member expert panel, at which 17 quality measures were determined to be appropriate. In all, 2 measures dealt with competency, 2 pertained to assessment before procedure, 3 were regarding performance of the procedure itself, and 10 were about interpretation of data obtained from esophageal manometry; the 10 measures concerning interpretation of data were compiled into 1 measure, leaving a total of 8 that were ultimately approved.
The quality measures for competency are as follows:
• “If esophageal manometry is performed, then the technician must be competent to perform esophageal manometry.”
• “If a physician is considered competent to interpret esophageal manometry, then the physician must interpret a minimum number of esophageal manometry studies annually.”
For assessment before procedure, the measures state the following:
• “If a patient is referred for esophageal manometry, then the patient should have undergone an evaluation for structural abnormalities before manometry.”
• “If an esophageal manometry is performed, then informed consent must be obtained and documented.”
Quality measures regarding the procedure itself state the following:
• “If an esophageal manometry study is performed, then a time interval of at least 30 seconds should occur between swallows.”
• “If an esophageal manometry study is performed, then at least 10 wet swallows should be attempted.”
• “If an esophageal manometry study is performed, then at least seven evaluable wet swallows should be included.”
Finally, regarding interpretation of data, the single quality measures states that “If an esophageal manometry study is interpreted, then a complete procedure report should document the following:
• “Reason for referral.”
• “Clinical diagnosis.”
• “Diagnosis according to formally validated classification scheme.”
• “Documentation of formally validated classification scheme used.”
• “Summary of results”
• “Tabulated results including upper esophageal sphincter activity, interpretation of esophagogastric junction relaxation, documentation of pressure inversion point if technically feasible, pressurization pattern and contractile pattern.”
• “Technical limitation (if applicable).”
• “Communication to referring provider.”
“These eight appropriate quality measures are considered absolutely necessary in the performance and interpretation of esophageal manometry,” the authors concluded. “In particular, measures 3-8 are clinically feasible and measurable, and should serve as an initial framework to benchmark quality and reduce variability in esophageal manometry practices.”
This study was funded by the Alumnae of Northwestern University, and a grant to Dr. Yadlapati (T32 DK101363-02). Five coinvestigators disclosed consultancy and speaking relationships with Boston Scientific, Cook Endoscopy, EndoStim, Given Imaging, Covidien, and Sandhill Scientific.
Health care providers performing esophageal manometry should keep in mind eight new quality measures listed and validated in a recent study published in the April issue of Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology (Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2015 Oct 20. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2015.10.006), which researchers believe will significantly improve the performance of esophageal manometry and interpretation of data culled from such procedures.
“Despite its critical importance in the diagnosis and management of esophageal motility disorders, features of a high-quality esophageal manometry [study] have not been formally defined,” said the study authors, led by Dr. Rena Yadlapati of Northwestern University in Chicago. “Standardizing key aspects of esophageal manometry is imperative to ensure the delivery of high-quality care.”
SOURCE: AMERICAN GASTROENTEROLOGICAL ASSOCIATION
Dr. Yadlapati and her coinvestigators carried out the study in accordance with guidelines set out by the RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method (RAM), They began by recruiting a panel of 15 esophageal manometry experts with leadership, geographical diversity, and a wide range of practice settings being the key criteria in their selection.
Investigators then conducted a literature review, selecting the 30 most relevant randomized, controlled trials, retrospective studies, and systematic reviews from the past 10 years. From this review, investigators created a list of 30 possible quality measures, all of which were then sent to each member of the expert panel via email for them to rank on a 9-point interval scale, and modify if necessary.
Those rankings were then used to determine the appropriateness of each proposed quality measure at a face-to-face meeting among the investigators and the 15-member expert panel, at which 17 quality measures were determined to be appropriate. In all, 2 measures dealt with competency, 2 pertained to assessment before procedure, 3 were regarding performance of the procedure itself, and 10 were about interpretation of data obtained from esophageal manometry; the 10 measures concerning interpretation of data were compiled into 1 measure, leaving a total of 8 that were ultimately approved.
The quality measures for competency are as follows:
• “If esophageal manometry is performed, then the technician must be competent to perform esophageal manometry.”
• “If a physician is considered competent to interpret esophageal manometry, then the physician must interpret a minimum number of esophageal manometry studies annually.”
For assessment before procedure, the measures state the following:
• “If a patient is referred for esophageal manometry, then the patient should have undergone an evaluation for structural abnormalities before manometry.”
• “If an esophageal manometry is performed, then informed consent must be obtained and documented.”
Quality measures regarding the procedure itself state the following:
• “If an esophageal manometry study is performed, then a time interval of at least 30 seconds should occur between swallows.”
• “If an esophageal manometry study is performed, then at least 10 wet swallows should be attempted.”
• “If an esophageal manometry study is performed, then at least seven evaluable wet swallows should be included.”
Finally, regarding interpretation of data, the single quality measures states that “If an esophageal manometry study is interpreted, then a complete procedure report should document the following:
• “Reason for referral.”
• “Clinical diagnosis.”
• “Diagnosis according to formally validated classification scheme.”
• “Documentation of formally validated classification scheme used.”
• “Summary of results”
• “Tabulated results including upper esophageal sphincter activity, interpretation of esophagogastric junction relaxation, documentation of pressure inversion point if technically feasible, pressurization pattern and contractile pattern.”
• “Technical limitation (if applicable).”
• “Communication to referring provider.”
“These eight appropriate quality measures are considered absolutely necessary in the performance and interpretation of esophageal manometry,” the authors concluded. “In particular, measures 3-8 are clinically feasible and measurable, and should serve as an initial framework to benchmark quality and reduce variability in esophageal manometry practices.”
This study was funded by the Alumnae of Northwestern University, and a grant to Dr. Yadlapati (T32 DK101363-02). Five coinvestigators disclosed consultancy and speaking relationships with Boston Scientific, Cook Endoscopy, EndoStim, Given Imaging, Covidien, and Sandhill Scientific.
Health care providers performing esophageal manometry should keep in mind eight new quality measures listed and validated in a recent study published in the April issue of Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology (Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2015 Oct 20. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2015.10.006), which researchers believe will significantly improve the performance of esophageal manometry and interpretation of data culled from such procedures.
“Despite its critical importance in the diagnosis and management of esophageal motility disorders, features of a high-quality esophageal manometry [study] have not been formally defined,” said the study authors, led by Dr. Rena Yadlapati of Northwestern University in Chicago. “Standardizing key aspects of esophageal manometry is imperative to ensure the delivery of high-quality care.”
SOURCE: AMERICAN GASTROENTEROLOGICAL ASSOCIATION
Dr. Yadlapati and her coinvestigators carried out the study in accordance with guidelines set out by the RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method (RAM), They began by recruiting a panel of 15 esophageal manometry experts with leadership, geographical diversity, and a wide range of practice settings being the key criteria in their selection.
Investigators then conducted a literature review, selecting the 30 most relevant randomized, controlled trials, retrospective studies, and systematic reviews from the past 10 years. From this review, investigators created a list of 30 possible quality measures, all of which were then sent to each member of the expert panel via email for them to rank on a 9-point interval scale, and modify if necessary.
Those rankings were then used to determine the appropriateness of each proposed quality measure at a face-to-face meeting among the investigators and the 15-member expert panel, at which 17 quality measures were determined to be appropriate. In all, 2 measures dealt with competency, 2 pertained to assessment before procedure, 3 were regarding performance of the procedure itself, and 10 were about interpretation of data obtained from esophageal manometry; the 10 measures concerning interpretation of data were compiled into 1 measure, leaving a total of 8 that were ultimately approved.
The quality measures for competency are as follows:
• “If esophageal manometry is performed, then the technician must be competent to perform esophageal manometry.”
• “If a physician is considered competent to interpret esophageal manometry, then the physician must interpret a minimum number of esophageal manometry studies annually.”
For assessment before procedure, the measures state the following:
• “If a patient is referred for esophageal manometry, then the patient should have undergone an evaluation for structural abnormalities before manometry.”
• “If an esophageal manometry is performed, then informed consent must be obtained and documented.”
Quality measures regarding the procedure itself state the following:
• “If an esophageal manometry study is performed, then a time interval of at least 30 seconds should occur between swallows.”
• “If an esophageal manometry study is performed, then at least 10 wet swallows should be attempted.”
• “If an esophageal manometry study is performed, then at least seven evaluable wet swallows should be included.”
Finally, regarding interpretation of data, the single quality measures states that “If an esophageal manometry study is interpreted, then a complete procedure report should document the following:
• “Reason for referral.”
• “Clinical diagnosis.”
• “Diagnosis according to formally validated classification scheme.”
• “Documentation of formally validated classification scheme used.”
• “Summary of results”
• “Tabulated results including upper esophageal sphincter activity, interpretation of esophagogastric junction relaxation, documentation of pressure inversion point if technically feasible, pressurization pattern and contractile pattern.”
• “Technical limitation (if applicable).”
• “Communication to referring provider.”
“These eight appropriate quality measures are considered absolutely necessary in the performance and interpretation of esophageal manometry,” the authors concluded. “In particular, measures 3-8 are clinically feasible and measurable, and should serve as an initial framework to benchmark quality and reduce variability in esophageal manometry practices.”
This study was funded by the Alumnae of Northwestern University, and a grant to Dr. Yadlapati (T32 DK101363-02). Five coinvestigators disclosed consultancy and speaking relationships with Boston Scientific, Cook Endoscopy, EndoStim, Given Imaging, Covidien, and Sandhill Scientific.
FROM CLINICAL GASTROENTEROLOGY AND HEPATOLOGY
Key clinical point: Health care providers should consider eight new validated quality measures when performing and interpreting esophageal manometry data.
Major finding: Of 30 possible measures, 10 regarding interpretation of data were compiled into a single quality measure, 2 were classified as competency measures, 2 were classified as assessments necessary prior to an esophageal manometry procedure, and 3 were classified as integral to the procedure of esophageal manometry, for a total of 8.
Data source: Survey of existing literature and expert interviews on validated quality measures on the basis of the RAM.
Disclosures: Study was partly funded by a grant from the Alumnae of Northwestern University; five coauthors reported financial disclosures.
