Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34970427›Full record

ReviewFrontline gastroenterology2022

Joint Advisory Group on Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (JAG) framework for managing underperformance in gastrointestinal endoscopy.

Srivathsan Ravindran, Siwan Thomas-Gibson, Keith Siau, Geoff V Smith, Mark Coleman, Colin Rees, Chris Healey

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Frontline gastroenterology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. 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

7 authors.

Srivathsan RavindranJoint Advisory Group on Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, Royal College of Physicians, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-1162-9555
Siwan Thomas-GibsonWolfson Endoscopy Unit, St Mark's Hospital and Academic Institute, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-8922-6249
Keith SiauDepartment of Gastroenterology, Dudley Group of Hospitals NHS Trust, Dudley, UK.
Geoff V SmithJoint Advisory Group on Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, Royal College of Physicians, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-8521-3851
Mark ColemanJoint Advisory Group on Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, Royal College of Physicians, London, UK.
Colin ReesPopulation Health Sciences Institute, Newcastle University Centre for Cancer, South Shields, UK.
Chris HealeyJoint Advisory Group on Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, Royal College of Physicians, London, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Underperformance can be defined as performance which persistently falls below a desired minimum standard considered acceptable for patient care. Within gastrointestinal endoscopy, underperformance may be multifactorial, related to an individual's knowledge, skills, attitudes, health or external factors. If left unchecked, underperformance has the potential to impact on care and ultimately patient safety. Managing underperformance should be a key attribute of high-quality endoscopy service, as recognised in the Joint Advisory Group on Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (JAG) accreditation process. However, it is recognised that not all services have robust mechanisms to do this. This article provides the JAG position on managing underperformance in endoscopy, defined through a practical framework. This follows a stepwise process of detecting underperformance, verification, identification of additional causative factors, providing support and reassessment. Detection and verification of issues may require use of multiple evidence sources, including performance data, feedback and appraisal reports. Where technical underperformance is identified, this should be risk stratified by potential risk to patient safety. Support should be tailored to each individual case based on the type of underperformance detected, any causative factors with an action plan developed. Support may include coaching, mentoring, training and upskilling. Wider support from the medical director's office or external services may also be required. Monitoring and reassessment is a crucial part of the overall process.

Indexed as

endoscopy

Identifiers

PMID34970427
PMCPMC8666862

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.