You are here

  • Home
  • Archive
  • Volume 66, Issue 11
  • Quality standards in upper gastrointestinal endoscopy: a position statement of the British Society of Gastroenterology (BSG) and Association of Upper Gastrointestinal Surgeons of Great Britain and Ireland (AUGIS)

Article Text

Article menu

This article has a correction. Please see:

Download PDFPDF

XML
Guidelines
Quality standards in upper gastrointestinal endoscopy: a position statement of the British Society of Gastroenterology (BSG) and Association of Upper Gastrointestinal Surgeons of Great Britain and Ireland (AUGIS)
  1. Sabina Beg1,
  2. Krish Ragunath1,
  3. Andrew Wyman2,
  4. Matthew Banks3,
  5. Nigel Trudgill4,
  6. Mark D Pritchard5,
  7. Stuart Riley6,
  8. John Anderson7,
  9. Helen Griffiths8,
  10. Pradeep Bhandari9,
  11. Phillip Kaye10,
  12. Andrew Veitch11
  1. 1Department of Gastroenterology, NIHR Nottingham Digestive Diseases Biomedical Research Centre, Queens Medical Centre, Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust, Nottingham, UK
  2. 2Department of Surgery, Sheffield Teaching Hospitals, Sheffield, UK
  3. 3Department of Gastroenterology, University College London Hospitals, London, UK
  4. 4Department of Gastroenterology, Sandwell General Hospital, West Bromwich, UK
  5. 5Department of Cellular and Molecular Physiology, Institute of Translational Medicine, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK
  6. 6Department of Gastroenterology, Sheffield Teaching Hospitals, Sheffield, UK
  7. 7Department of Gastroenterology, Gloucestershire Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Cheltenham, UK
  8. 8Department of Gastroenterology, Wye Valley NHS Trust, Herefordshire, UK
  9. 9Department of Gastroenterology, Queen Alexandra Hospital, Portsmouth, UK
  10. 10Department of Histopathology, Nottingham University Hospitals NHS trust, Nottingham, UK
  11. 11Department of Gastroenterology, New Cross Hospital, Wolverhampton, UK
  1. Correspondence to Professor Krish Ragunath, NIHR Nottingham Digestive Diseases Biomedical Research Centre, Queens Medical Centre Campus, Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust, Nottingham NG7 2UH, UK; k.ragunath{at}nottingham.ac.uk

Abstract

This document represents the first position statement produced by the British Society of Gastroenterology and Association of Upper Gastrointestinal Surgeons of Great Britain and Ireland, setting out the minimum expected standards in diagnostic upper gastrointestinal endoscopy. The need for this statement has arisen from the recognition that while technical competence can be rapidly acquired, in practice the performance of a high-quality examination is variable, with an unacceptably high rate of failure to diagnose cancer at endoscopy. The importance of detecting early neoplasia has taken on greater significance in this era of minimally invasive, organ-preserving endoscopic therapy. In this position statement we describe 38 recommendations to improve diagnostic endoscopy quality. Our goal is to emphasise practices that encourage mucosal inspection and lesion recognition, with the aim of optimising the early diagnosis of upper gastrointestinal disease and improving patient outcomes.

  • OGD
  • quality
  • early upper gastro-intestinal cancer
  • key performance indicators

This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/

https://doi.org/10.1136/gutjnl-2017-314109

Statistics from Altmetric.com

    Request Permissions

    If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

    View Full Text

    Footnotes

    • Contributors SB (joint first author): systematic review of the evidence, author of the manuscript and coordinator of the process. KR (joint first author): formulation of KPIs, review and voting on evidence, review and contribution to the manuscript, overseeing the process. AW (AUGIS representative), MB, NT, DMP, SR, JA, HG, PB, AV: formulation of KPIs, review and voting on evidence, review and contribution to the manuscript. PK (histopathology representative): review and contribution to the manuscript.

    • Competing interests None declared.

    • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

    Linked Articles