Clinical Endoscopy

Original Article

Feedback Survey of the Effect, Burden, and Cost of the National Endoscopic Quality Assessment Program during the Past 5 Years in Korea: Yu Kyung Cho, Jeong Seop Moon, Dong Su Han, Yong Chan Lee, Yeol Kim, Bo Young Park, Il-Kwun Chung, Jin-Oh Kim, Jong Pil Im, Jae Myung Cha, Hyun Gun Kim, Sang Kil Lee, Hang Lak Lee, Jae Young Jang, Eun Sun Kim, Yunho Jung, Chang Mo Moon, Ethics and Quality Control Committee of Korean Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy; Clin Endosc 2016;49(6):542-547. Published online March 2, 2016; DOI: https://doi.org/10.5946/ce.2015.113

Background
/Aims: In Korea, the nationwide gastric cancer screening program recommends biennial screening for individuals aged 40 years or older by way of either an upper gastrointestinal series or endoscopy. The national endoscopic quality assessment (QA) program began recommending endoscopy in medical institutions in 2009. We aimed to assess the effect, burden, and cost of the QA program from the viewpoint of medical institutions.
Methods
We surveyed the staff of institutional endoscopic units via e-mail.
Results
Staff members from 67 institutions replied. Most doctors were endoscopic specialists. They responded as to whether the QA program raised awareness for endoscopic quality (93%) or improved endoscopic practice (40%). The percentages of responders who reported improvements in the diagnosis of gastric cancer, the qualifications of endoscopists, the quality of facilities and equipment, endoscopic procedure, and endoscopic reprocessing were 69%, 60%, 66%, 82%, and 75%, respectively. Regarding reprocessing, many staff members reported that they had bought new automated endoscopic preprocessors (3%), used more disinfectants (34%), washed endoscopes longer (28%), reduced the number of endoscopies performed to adhere to reprocessing guidelines (9%), and created their own quality education programs (59%). Many responders said they felt that QA was associated with some degree of burden (48%), especially financial burden caused by purchasing new equipment. Reasonable quality standards (45%) and incentives (38%) were considered important to the success of the QA program.
Conclusions
Endoscopic quality has improved after 5 years of the mandatory endoscopic QA program.

Citations

Citations to this article as recorded by

Monthly endoscopy surveillance culture facilitates detection of breaches in the scope reprocessing procedure: 5‐year experience in an endoscopy center
Shu‐Hui Chen, Theophile Liu, Huei‐Wen Lai, Hui‐Lan Chang, Hsu‐Heng Yen
Advances in Digestive Medicine.2022; 9(2): 103. CrossRef
A nationwide survey on the effectiveness of training on endoscope reprocessing within the national cancer screening program in Korea
Hye Young Shin, Da Hun Jang, Jae Kwan Jun
American Journal of Infection Control.2021; 49(8): 1031. CrossRef
Polyp missing rate and its associated risk factors of referring hospitals for endoscopic resection of advanced colorectal neoplasia
Jae Gyu Shin, Hyung Wook Kim, Su Bum Park, Cheol Woong Choi, Dae Hwan Kang, Su Jin Kim, Hyeong Seok Nam, Dae Gon Ryu
Medicine.2017; 96(19): e6742. CrossRef
Education and Training Guidelines for the Board of the Korean Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy
Hee Seok Moon, Eun Kwang Choi, Ji Hyun Seo, Jeong Seop Moon, Ho June Song, Kyoung Oh Kim, Jong Jin Hyun, Sung Kwan Shin, Beom Jae Lee, Sang Heon Lee
Clinical Endoscopy.2017; 50(4): 345. CrossRef
How to Improve the Quality of Screening Endoscopy in Korea: National Endoscopy Quality Improvement Program
Yu Kyung Cho
Clinical Endoscopy.2016; 49(4): 312. CrossRef
How Can We Propagate the National Endoscopy Quality Improvement Program and Improve the Quality of Endoscopic Screening?
Dong-Hoon Yang
Gut and Liver.2016; 10(5): 657. CrossRef
The Importance of an Endoscopic Quality Assessment Program Reflecting Real Practice
In Kyung Yoo, Yoon Tae Jeen
Clinical Endoscopy.2016; 49(6): 495. CrossRef

10,436 View
138 Download
5 Web of Science
7 Crossref

First
Prev
Page of 1
Next
Last

Search