ArticleAmerican journal of translational research2023
Optimization of the emergency endoscopy process for patients with esophagogastric variceal bleeding using failure mode and effect analysis.
Article in American journal of translational research, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Application of failure model and effect analysis in nursing care for patients who have undergone endoscopic sub-mucosal dissection.BMC nursing · 2025Article
- Healthcare Application of Failure Mode and Effect Analysis (FMEA): Is There Room in the Infectious Disease Setting? A Scoping Review.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo optimize the emergency endoscopy process for patients with esophagogastric variceal bleeding (EGVB) using failure mode and effect analysis (FMEA).
methodIn this retrospective analysis, we enrolled patients who were hospitalized in Ganzhou People's Hospital from January 2021 to December 2021. They were divided into 51 cases before and 51 cases after the intervention according to the time of FMEA model intervention. The risk of unsafe transport, endoscopic hemostasis success rate, RPN (risk priority number) value, dual venous access time, resuscitation success rate, emergency endoscopy timeout execution rate, patient health education awareness rate, and endoscopic ligation of esophageal varices (EVL) procedure volume were compared accordingly before and after the procedure.
resultsAfter the FMEA intervention, the emergency endoscopy process for EGVB patients was optimized, the risk of unsafe transport for emergency EGVB endoscopy was reduced, and the success rate of emergency endoscopic hemostasis for patients was improved. Also, the failure mode of RPN values greater than 12 was improved. After the countermeasures were implemented, the resuscitation success rate of EGVB patients reached 95%, the safe transport pass rate increased from 88% to 98.7%, and the patient health education awareness increased from 69% to 92%. The number of EGVB patients who underwent EVL surgery ranked second in the province. The waiting time, gastric function recovery time, dual venous access time, and hospital stay of patients who underwent the optimized procedure were significantly shorter compared to those before implementation (all P<0.01). The incidence of adverse events was significantly lower in patients who underwent the optimized procedure compared to the pre-implementation period (P<0.01).
conclusionApplying FMEA to analyze and optimize the process of EGVB patients undergoing emergency endoscopy can maximize patient life safety and treatment safety, as well as improve medical quality and care safety.
Indexed as
Identifiers
37303691PMC10251004W4380290702What 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.