ArticleTechniques and innovations in gastrointestinal endoscopy2021
Development of an automated ERCP Quality Report Card using structured data fields.
Article in Techniques and innovations in gastrointestinal endoscopy, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
aimsMeasuring adherence to ERCP quality indicators (QIs) is confounded by variability in indications, maneuvers, and documentation styles. We hypothesized that incorporation of mandatory, structured data fields within reporting software would permit accurate measurement of QI adherence rates and facilitate generation of a provider ERCP report card.
methodsAt two referral centers, endoscopy documentation software was modified to generate provider alerts prior to finalizing the note. The alerts reminded the provider to document the following components in a standardized manner: indication, altered anatomy, prior interventions, and QIs deemed high priority by society consensus, study authors, or both. Adherence rates for each QI were calculated in aggregate and by provider via data extraction directly from the procedure documentation software. Medical records were reviewed manually to measure the accuracy of automated data extraction. Accuracy of automated measurement for each QI was calculated against results derived by manual review.
resultsDuring the 9-month study period, 1,376 ERCP procedures were completed by 8 providers. Manual medical record review confirmed high (98-100%) accuracy of automatic extraction of ERCP QIs from the endoscopy report, including cannulation rate of the native papilla and complete extraction of common bile duct stones. An ERCP report card was generated, allowing for individual comparison of adherence to ERCP QIs with colleagues at their institution and others.
conclusionIn this pilot study, use of mandatory, structured data fields within clinical ERCP reports permit the accurate measurement of high priority ERCP QIs and the subsequent generation of interval report cards.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.