Advertisement

Grading the complexity of endoscopic procedures: results of an ASGE working party

Published:March 07, 2011DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gie.2010.12.036

      Background

      Working parties of the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE) Quality Committee recently published a proposed new lexicon for adverse events and a separate extensive review of risk factors. The complexity of procedures also affects outcomes.

      Objective

      To establish a system for grading the complexity of endoscopic procedures.

      Design

      Voting on levels 1 (easiest) to 4 (most difficult) on a list of possible procedures and contexts.

      Setting

      Community and academic gastroenterologists in the United States, Canada, and Britain.

      Main Outcome Measurements

      Median scores of votes cast.

      Results

      Consensus list of levels 1 through 4 contexts and procedures.

      Limitations

      Eminence rather than evidence based.

      Conclusions

      A consensus list was developed for comments and testing to complement the proposed lexicons for adverse events and risk factors.

      Abbreviation:

      ASGE (American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy)
      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'

      Subscribe:

      Subscribe to Gastrointestinal Endoscopy
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect

      References

        • Cotton P.B.
        • Eisen G.M.
        • Aabakken L.
        • et al.
        A lexicon for endoscopic adverse events: report of an ASGE workshop.
        Gastrointest Endosc. 2010; 71: 446-454
        • Schutz S.M.
        • Abbott R.M.
        Grading ERCPs by degree of difficulty: a new concept to produce more meaningful outcome data.
        Gastrointest Endosc. 2000; 51: 535-539
        • Cotton P.B.
        Income and outcome metrics for the objective evaluation of ERCP and alternative methods.
        Gastrointest Endosc. 2002; 56: S283-S290
        • Madhotra R.
        • Cotton P.B.
        • Vaughn J.
        • et al.
        Analyzing ERCP practice by a modified degree of difficulty scale: a multicenter database analysis.
        Am J Gastroenterol. 2000; 95: 2480-2481
        • Raganath K.
        • Thomas L.A.
        • Cheung W.Y.
        • et al.
        Objective evaluation of ERCP procedures: a simple grading scale for evaluating technical difficulty.
        Postgrad Med J. 2003; 79: 467-470
      1. Romagnuolo J, Cotton PB, Eisen G, et al. Identifying and reporting risk factors for adverse events in endoscopy. Part I: cardiopulmonary events. Gastrointest Endosc (in press).

      2. Romagnuolo J, Cotton PB, Eisen G, et al. Identifying and reporting risk factors for adverse events in endoscopy. Part II: noncardiopulmonary events. Gastrointest Endosc (in press).

        • Cotton P.B.
        How many times have you done this procedure, doctor?.
        Am J Gastroenterol. 2002; 97: 522-523
      3. Available at: www.GIQuIC.com. Accessed December, 2010.