Challenges and strategies of children and adolescents with inflammatory bowel disease: a qualitative examination

© 2007 Nicholas et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Licens

Rural and urban disparities in the care of Canadian patients with inflammatory bowel disease: a population-based study

Eric I Benchimol,1–5 M Ellen Kuenzig,1,2,5 Charles N Bernstein,6,7 Geoffrey C Nguyen,5,8 Astrid Guttmann,5,9 Jennifer L Jones,10 Beth K Potter,4 Laura E Targownik,6,7 Christina A Catley,5 Zoann J Nugent,6,11 Divine Tanyingoh,12,13 Nassim Mojaverian,5 Fox E Underwood,12,13 Shabnaz Siddiq,1,2 Anthony R Otley,14 Alain Bitton,15 Matthew W Carroll,16 Jennifer C deBruyn,17 Trevor JB Dummer,18 Wael El-Matary,19 Anne M Griffiths,9 Kevan Jacobson,20,21 Desmond Leddin,10 Lisa M Lix,22 David R Mack,1–3 Sanjay K Murthy,4,23 Juan Nicolás Peña-Sánchez,24 Harminder Singh,6,7 Gilaad G Kaplan12,13 On behalf of the Canadian Gastro-Intestinal Epidemiology Consortium 1Children’s Hospital of Eastern Ontario IBD Centre, Division of Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Nutrition, Children’s Hospital of Eastern Ontario, Ottawa, Canada; 2Children’s Hospital of Eastern Ontario Research Institute, Ottawa, Canada; 3Department of Pediatrics, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Canada; 4School of Epidemiology and Public Health, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Canada; 5ICES, Toronto, Canada; 6University of Manitoba IBD Clinical and Research Centre, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada; 7Department of Internal Medicine, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada; 8Department of Medicine, Mount Sinai Hospital Centre for Inflammatory Bowel Disease, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada; 9Department of Paediatrics, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada; 10Department of Medicine, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Canada; 11CancerCare Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada; 12Department of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada; 13Department of Community Health Sciences, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada; 14Department of Pediatrics, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Canada; 15Division of Gastroenterology, McGill University Health Centre, Montreal, Canada; 16Division of Pediatric Gastroenterology and Nutrition, Department of Pediatrics, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada; 17Division of Gastroenterology, Department of Pediatrics, University of Calgary, Calgary, Canada; 18School of Population and Public Health, University of British Columbia, British Columbia, Canada; 19Department of Pediatrics, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada; 20Department of Pediatrics, The University of British Columbia, British Columbia, Canada; 21Child and Family Research Institute, The University of British Columbia, British Columbia, Canada; 22Department of Community Health Sciences, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada; 23The Ottawa Hospital IBD Centre, Department of Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada; 24Department of Community Health and Epidemiology, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, Canada Background and aims: Canada’s large geographic area and low population density pose challenges in access to specialized health care for remote and rural residents. We compared health services use, surgical rate, and specialist gastroenterologist care in rural and urban inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) patients in Canada.Methods: We used validated algorithms that were applied to population-based health administrative data to identify all people living with the following three Canadian provinces: Alberta, Manitoba, and Ontario (ON). We compared rural residents with urban residents for time to diagnosis, hospitalizations, outpatient visits, emergency department (ED) use, surgical rate, and gastroenterologist care. Multivariable regression compared the outcomes in rural/urban patients, controlling for confounders. Provincial results were meta-analyzed using random-effects models to produce overall estimates.Results: A total of 36,656 urban and 5,223 rural residents with incident IBD were included. Outpatient physician visit rate was similar in rural and urban patients. IBD-specific and IBD-related hospitalization rates were higher in rural patients (incidence rate ratio [IRR] 1.17, 95% CI 1.02–1.34, and IRR 1.27, 95% CI 1.04–1.56, respectively). The rate of ED visits in ON were similarly elevated for rural patients (IRR 1.53, 95% CI 1.42–1.65, and IRR 1.33, 95% CI 1.25–1.40). There were no differences in surgical rates or prediagnosis lag time between rural and urban patients. Rural patients had fewer IBD-specific gastroenterologist visits (IRR 0.79, 95% CI 0.73–0.84) and a smaller proportion of their IBD-specific care was provided by gastroenterologists (28.3% vs 55.2%, P<0.0001). This was less pronounced in children <10 years at diagnosis (59.3% vs 65.0%, P<0.0001), and the gap was widest in patients >65 years (33.0% vs 59.2%, P<0.0001).Conclusion: There were lower rates of gastroenterologist physician visits , more hospitalizations, and greater rates of ED visits in rural IBD patients. These disparities in health services use result in costlier care for rural patients. Innovative methods of delivering gastroenterology care to rural IBD patients (such as telehealth, online support, and remote clinics) should be explored, especially for communities lacking easy access to gastroenterologists. Keywords: inflammatory bowel disease, epidemiology, health services research, access to care, health administrative data, routinely collected health dat

Pediatric Endoscopy Quality Improvement Network (PEnQuIN) Quality Standards and Indicators for Pediatric Endoscopy Facilities: A Joint NASPGHAN/ESPGHAN Guideline.

INTRODUCTION: There is increasing international recognition of the impact of variability in endoscopy facilities on procedural quality and outcomes. There is also growing precedent for assessing the quality of endoscopy facilities at regional and national levels by using standardized rating scales to identify opportunities for improvement. METHODS: With support from the North American and European Societies of Pediatric Gastroenterology Hepatology and Nutrition (NASPGHAN and ESPGHAN), an international working group of the Pediatric Endoscopy Quality Improvement Network (PEnQuIN) used the methodological strategy of the Appraisal of Guidelines for REsearch and Evaluation (AGREE) II instrument to develop standards and indicators relevant for assessing the quality of facilities where endoscopic care is provided to children. Consensus was reached via an iterative online Delphi process and subsequent in-person meeting. The quality of evidence and strength of recommendations were rated according to the GRADE (Grading of Recommendation Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach. RESULTS: The PEnQuIN working group achieved consensus on 27 standards for facilities supporting pediatric endoscopy, as well 10 indicators that can be used to identify high quality endoscopic care in children. These standards were subcategorized into 3 subdomains: Quality of Clinical Operations (15 standards, 5 indicators); Patient and Caregiver Experience (9 standards, 5 indicators); and Workforce (3 standards). DISCUSSION: The rigorous PEnQuIN process successfully yielded standards and indicators that can be used to universally guide and measure high quality facilities for procedures around the world where endoscopy is performed in children. It also underscores the current paucity of evidence for pediatric endoscopic care processes, and the need for research into this clinical area

Pediatric Endoscopy Quality Improvement Network (PEnQuIN) Quality Standards and Indicators for Pediatric Endoscopic Procedures: A Joint NASPGHAN/ESPGHAN Guideline.

INTRODUCTION: High quality pediatric gastrointestinal procedures are performed when clinically indicated and defined by their successful performance by skilled providers in a safe, comfortable, child-oriented and expeditious manner. The process of pediatric endoscopy begins when a plan to perform the procedure is first made and ends when all appropriate patient follow-up has occurred. Procedure-related standards and indicators developed to date for endoscopy in adults emphasize cancer screening and are thus unsuitable for pediatric medicine. METHODS: With support from the North American and European Societies of Pediatric Gastroenterology Hepatology and Nutrition (NASPGHAN and ESPGHAN), an international working group of the Pediatric Endoscopy Quality Improvement Network (PEnQuIN) used the methodological strategy of the Appraisal of Guidelines for REsearch and Evaluation (AGREE) II instrument to develop standards and indicators relevant for assessing the quality of endoscopic procedures. Consensus was sought via an iterative online Delphi process and finalized at an in-person conference. The quality of evidence and strength of recommendations were rated according to the GRADE (Grading of Recommendation Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) approach. RESULTS: The PEnQuIN working group achieved consensus on 14 standards for pediatric endoscopic procedures, as well as 30 indicators that can be used to identify high quality procedures. These were subcategorized into 3 subdomains: Preprocedural (3 standards, 7 indicators), Intraprocedural (8 standards, 18 indicators) and Postprocedural (3 standards, 5 indicators). A minimum target for the key indicator, 'rate of adequate bowel preparation,' was set at ≥80%. DISCUSSION: It is recommended that all facilities and individual providers performing pediatric endoscopy worldwide initiate and engage with the procedure-related standards and indicators developed by PEnQuIN to identify gaps in quality and drive improvement

Pediatric Endoscopy Quality Improvement Network (PEnQuIN) Quality Standards and Indicators for Pediatric Endoscopists and Endoscopists in Training: A Joint NASPGHAN/ESPGHAN Guideline.

INTRODUCTION: High quality pediatric endoscopy requires reliable performance of procedures by competent individual providers who consistently uphold all standards determined to assure optimal patient outcomes. Establishing consensus expectations for ongoing monitoring and assessment of individual pediatric endoscopists is a method for confirming the highest possible quality of care for such procedures worldwide. We aim to provide guidance to define and measure quality of endoscopic care for children. METHODS: With support from the North American and European Societies of Pediatric Gastroenterology Hepatology and Nutrition (NASPGHAN and ESPGHAN), an international working group of the Pediatric Endoscopy Quality Improvement Network (PEnQuIN) used the methodological strategy of the Appraisal of Guidelines for REsearch and Evaluation (AGREE) II instrument to develop standards and indicators relevant for assessing the quality of endoscopists. Consensus was sought via an iterative online Delphi process and finalized at an in-person conference. The quality of evidence and strength of recommendations were rated according to the GRADE (Grading of Recommendation Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) approach. RESULTS: The PEnQuIN working group achieved consensus on 6 standards that all providers who perform pediatric endoscopy should uphold and 2 standards for pediatric endoscopists in training, with a corresponding 7 indicators that can be used to identify high quality endoscopists. Additionally, these can inform continuous quality improvement at the provider level. Minimum targets for defining high quality pediatric ileocolonoscopy were set for 2 key indicators: cecal intubation rate (≥90%) and terminal ileal intubation rate (≥85%). DISCUSSION: It is recommended that all individual providers performing or training to perform pediatric endoscopy initiate and engage with these international endoscopist-related standards and indicators developed by PEnQuIN

Pediatric Endoscopy Quality Improvement Network (PEnQuIN) Pediatric Endoscopy Reporting Elements: A Joint NASPGHAN/ESPGHAN Guideline.

INTRODUCTION: High quality procedure reports are a cornerstone of high quality pediatric endoscopy as they ensure the clear communication of procedural events and outcomes, guide patient care and facilitate continuous quality improvement. The aim of this document is to outline standardized reporting elements that achieved international consensus as requirements for high quality pediatric endoscopy procedure reports. METHODS: With support from the North American and European Societies of Pediatric Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Nutrition (NASPGHAN and ESPGHAN), an international working group of the Pediatric Endoscopy Quality Improvement Network (PEnQuIN) used Delphi methodology to identify key elements that should be found in all pediatric endoscopy reports. Item reduction was attained through iterative rounds of anonymized online voting using a 6-point scale. Responses were analyzed after each round and items were excluded from subsequent rounds if ≤50% of panelists rated them as 5 ('agree moderately') or 6 ('agree strongly'). Reporting elements that ≥70% of panelists rated as 'agree moderately' or 'agree strongly' were considered to have achieved consensus. RESULTS: Twenty-six PEnQuIN group members from 25 centers internationally rated 63 potential reporting elements that were generated from a systematic literature review and the Delphi panelists. The response rates were 100% for all three survey rounds. Thirty reporting elements reached consensus as essential for inclusion within a pediatric endoscopy report. DISCUSSION: It is recommended that the PEnQuIN Reporting Elements for pediatric endoscopy be universally employed across all endoscopists, procedures and facilities as a foundational means of ensuring high quality endoscopy services, while facilitating quality improvement activities in pediatric endoscopy