Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30014225›Full record

SynthesisDigestive diseases and sciences2018

Quality Improvement in Gastroenterology: A Systematic Review of Practical Interventions for Clinicians.

Courtney Reynolds, Eric Esrailian, Daniel Hommes

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Digestive diseases and sciences, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
0.3field-weighted citation impact, top 38% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Courtney ReynoldsDivision of Digestive Diseases, Department of Medicine, University of California Los Angeles, 10945 Le Conte Ave, Suite 2338, Los Angeles, CA, 90095, USA. careynolds@mednet.ucla.edu.
Eric EsrailianDivision of Digestive Diseases, Department of Medicine, University of California Los Angeles, 10945 Le Conte Ave, Suite 2338, Los Angeles, CA, 90095, USA.
Daniel HommesDivision of Digestive Diseases, Department of Medicine, University of California Los Angeles, 10945 Le Conte Ave, Suite 2338, Los Angeles, CA, 90095, USA.
University of California, Los Angeles · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundQuality improvement (QI) identifies practical methods to improve patient care; however, it is not always widely known which QI methods are successful. We sought to create a primer of QI in gastroenterology for the practicing clinician.

methodsWe performed a systematic review of QI literature in gastroenterology. We included search terms for inflammatory bowel disease, irritable bowel syndrome, celiac disease, gastroesophageal reflux disease, pancreatitis, liver disease, colorectal cancer screening, endoscopy, and gastrointestinal bleeding. We used general search terms for QI as well as specific terms to capture established quality metrics for each GI disease area.

resultsWe found 33 studies that met our definitions for QI. There were 17 studies of endoscopy including screening colonoscopy, six on liver disease, four on IBD, two on GERD, three on GI bleeding, and one on celiac disease. Education was the most common intervention, although most successful studies combined education with another intervention. Other effective interventions included retraining sessions to reach ADR goals in colonoscopy, nursing protocols to increase HCC screening, and EMR decision support tools to prompt reassessment of PPI therapy. Many studies showed improved compliance to metrics, but few were able to show differences in length of stay, readmissions, or mortality.

conclusionsOur review of quality improvement literature in gastroenterology revealed common themes of successful programs: Education was frequently used but often insufficient, the EMR may be underutilized in guiding decision making, and patient-reported outcomes were infrequently assessed. Further research may be needed to compare QI strategies directly.

Indexed as

Patient Care ManagementGastroenterologyGastrointestinal DiseasesHumansQuality ImprovementDelivery of health careGastroenterologyHealth servicesQuality improvement

Identifiers

PMID30014225
OpenAlexW2883589051

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.