4.7 Article

Wide Variability in Dysplasia Detection Rate and Adherence to Seattle Protocol and Surveillance Recommendations in Barrett's Esophagus: A Population-Based Analysis Using the GIQuIC National Quality Benchmarking Registry

Journal

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF GASTROENTEROLOGY
Volume 118, Issue 5, Pages 900-904

Publisher

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.14309/ajg.0000000000002102

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study evaluated adherence rates to quality indicators (QIs) in Barrett's esophagus (BE), including the Seattle protocol and surveillance interval recommendations, and found significant variability among endoscopists and sites. These population-based results from the US can serve as a benchmark for quality improvement initiatives and intervention trials aimed at improving outcomes for patients with BE.
INTRODUCTION: Variability in adherence rates to the Seattle protocol and to surveillance interval recommendations, established quality indicators (QIs) in Barrett's esophagus (BE), is unknown. METHODS: We evaluated endoscopist and site-based adherence rates to these QIs from January 2018 to May 2021 using the GI Quality Improvement Consortium national registry with matched endoscopy and pathology data. RESULTS: Across 153 practices with 572 endoscopists performing 20,155 endoscopies, adherence to the Seattle protocol varied by endoscopists (median 93.8%, IQR 18.9%) and by site (median 90.0%, IQR 20.1%). Adherence to appropriate surveillance intervals for nondysplastic BE also varied by endoscopist (median 82.4%, IQR 36.3%) and site (median 77.2%, IQR 29.8%). The overall dysplasia detection rate was 3.1% and varied among endoscopists and sites. DISCUSSION: These US population-based results can serve as a benchmark for quality initiatives and intervention trials aimed at improving outcomes for patients with BE.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available