Unexpected Findings in Magnetic Resonance Enterography and Their Clinical Significance

Aims. To identify the prevalence of colonic and extraenteric incidental findings in magnetic resonance enterography (MRE) and their clinical significance. Methods. We retrospectively analysed 470 MRE studies carried out between March 2012 and 2014. Incidental findings were defined as those not expected from or made apparent on the referral. MRE reports were reviewed for colonic and extraenteric findings, subcategorised into “clinically significant” and “insignificant.” Follow-up was identified from the electronic patient record. Results. The majority of MRE requests were made for inflammatory bowel disease (97%). In total, 114 incidental findings were noted in 94 (20%) scans performed. There were 29 “colonic” findings (25%) with 55% having a diagnosis of colitis. Out of 85 extraenteric findings, ovarian cysts (25%), renal cysts (10%), and abdominal lymphadenopathy (9%) were the commonest. Cumulatively, 59 cases were clinically significant (52%); of these, 30 findings were not previously diagnosed, amounting to 26% of all incidental findings. This led to intervention in seven patients. Conclusions. Incidental findings are common in MRE and there is a substantial proportion that is clinically significant and requires further investigation. There need to be stratification of risk and employment of local guidelines in order to achieve this

Novel classification for adverse events in GI endoscopy: the AGREE classification

Background and Aims: Standardized registration and evaluation of adverse events (AEs) are essential to assess the safety of endoscopic procedures. We propose a novel classification system, named adverse events in GI endoscopy (AGREE), adapted from a widely accepted surgical tool. Methods: The Clavien-Dindo classification for surgical AEs was adapted for endoscopy. To validate the novel classification, we assessed if the severity of AEs, as perceived by 10 endoscopists, 10 endoscopy nurses, and 10 patients, corresponded with the severity grading used in the AGREE classification in 10 pairwise comparisons. We additionally assessed the correlation between the AGREE classification and the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE) classification. The acceptability of the AGREE classification was evaluated through an international questionnaire. Results: The perception of endoscopists, endoscopy nurses, and patients corresponded with the severity grading of the AGREE classification in 80% of cases (238/299). The AGREE classification significantly correlated with the ASGE classification (ρ = .760). Fifty-seven of 84 experts (68%) completed a questionnaire regarding the acceptability of the AGREE classification. The experts consulted considered the AGREE classification as simple (86%), reproducible (98%), logical (98%), and useful (96%). Most case presentations (84%) were correctly graded according to the AGREE classification. Conclusions: The AGREE classification provides a standardized and reproducible approach to the assessment of AEs in diagnostic and therapeutic GI endoscopy. Broad implementation of the AGREE classification may facilitate the evaluation of AEs across different endoscopists, disciplines, endoscopy services, and regions. This standardization of AE reporting will support improved quality assurance in GI endoscopy

Development, validation, and results of a national endoscopy safety attitudes questionnaire (Endo-SAQ)

Background and study aims Safety attitudes are linked to patient outcomes. The Joint Advisory Group on Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (JAG) identifies the need to improve our understanding of safety culture in endoscopy. We describe the development and validation of the Endo-SAQ (endoscopy safety attitudes questionnaire) and the results of a national survey of staff attitudes. Methods Questions from the original SAQ were adapted to reflect endoscopy-specific content. This was refined by an expert group, followed by a pilot study to assess acceptability. The refined Endo-SAQ (comprising 35 questions across six domains) was disseminated to endoscopy staff across the UK and Ireland. Outcomes were domain scores and the percentage of positive responses (score ≥ 75/100) per domain. Descriptive and comparative analyses were performed. Binary logistic regression identified staff and service factors associated with positive scores. Validity and reliability of Endo-SAQ were assessed through psychometric analysis. Results After expert review, four questions in the preliminary Endo-SAQ were adjusted. 61 participants undertook the pilot study with good acceptability. 453 participants completed the refined Endo-SAQ. There were positive responses in teamwork, safety climate, job satisfaction and working conditions domains. Endoscopists had significantly more positive responses to stress recognition and working conditions than nursing staff. JAG accreditation was associated with positive scores in safety climate and job satisfaction domains. Endo-SAQ met thresholds of construct validity and reliability. Conclusions Endoscopy staff had largely positive safety attitudes scores but there were significant differences across domains and staff. There is evidence for the validity and reliability of Endo-SAQ. Endo-SAQ could complement current measures of patient safety in endoscopy and be used in evaluation and research