Consensus on Upper Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Key Performance Indicators to Reduce Post Endoscopy Upper Gastrointestinal Cancer.

Abstract

Background: Upper gastrointestinal (UGI) endoscopy lacks established key performance indicators. Up to three-fold variation in post endoscopy upper gastrointestinal cancer rates has been observed among endoscopy providers in England, highlighting the need for standardisation of UGI endoscopy practices.

Objective: We aimed to achieve consensus on evidence-based key performance indicators to reduce post endoscopy upper gastrointestinal cancer.

Methods: Modified nominal group technique was employed in two consensus workshops, with representation from clinicians, patients and relatives, moderated by James Lind Alliance facilitators. Potential indicators were identified from the umbrella systematic review, English provider post endoscopy upper gastrointestinal cancer rates, and differences in endoscopy practices from the National Endoscopy Database between providers with the highest (worst) and lowest (best) post endoscopy upper gastrointestinal cancer rates. KPIs were categorised as provider or endoscopist/procedure related and ranked as of major or minor importance. Minimum standards were proposed where possible.

Results: Participants included 14 clinicians (gastroenterologists and UGI surgeons), 3 nurse endoscopists, 2 UGI cancer nurse specialists, 14 patients, their relatives and representatives from patient support groups and four observers. Endoscopy provider related major key performance indicators and proposed standards included monitoring post endoscopy upper gastrointestinal cancer rates (minimum standard ≤ 7%); less intense endoscopy lists (maximum 10 'points' per list [one point is equivalent to 15 min]); endoscopy provider accreditation (all providers); and premalignant condition surveillance on dedicated lists by endoscopists with adequate training (> 90% surveillance endoscopies). Endoscopist/procedure related major key performance indicators included: examination time ≥ 7 min; training in early UGI neoplasia recognition (all endoscopists); mucosal view quality recorded and cleansing agents used if not excellent (> 90% endoscopies); intravenous sedation offered to all appropriate patients; recommended number of biopsies from cancer associated or premalignant lesions (> 90% endoscopy where such lesions identified); and endoscopists' annual UGI endoscopy volume > 100 (all endoscopists).

Conclusion: This study offers a consensus on the key performance indicators and minimum standards that should be used to improve UGI endoscopy quality and reduce post endoscopy upper gastrointestinal cancer.