Identification of Quality Measures for Performance of and Interpretation of Data From Esophageal Manometry

Rena Yadlapati, Andrew J. Gawron, Rajesh N. Keswani, Karl Bilimoria, Donald O. Castell, Kerry B. Dunbar, Chandra P. Gyawali, Blair A. Jobe, Philip O. Katz, David A. Katzka, Brian E. Lacy, Benson T. Massey, Joel E. Richter, Felice Schnoll-Sussman, Stuart J. Spechler, Roger Tatum, Marcelo F. Vela, John E. Pandolfino

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

15 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Background & Aims: Esophageal manometry is the standard for the diagnosis of esophageal motility disorders. Variations in the performance and interpretation of esophageal manometry result in discrepant diagnoses and unnecessary repeated procedures, and could have negative effects on patient outcomes. We need a method to benchmark the procedural quality of esophageal manometry; as such, our objective was to formally develop quality measures for the performance and interpretation of data from esophageal manometry. Methods: We used the RAND University of California Los Angeles Appropriateness Method (RAM) to develop validated quality measures for performing and interpreting esophageal manometry. The research team identified potential quality measures through a literature search and interviews with experts. Fourteen experts in esophageal manometry ranked the proposed quality measures for appropriateness via a 2-round process on the basis of RAM. Results: The experts considered a total of 29 measures; 17 were ranked as appropriate and were as follows: related to competency (2), assessment before the esophageal manometry procedure (2), the esophageal manometry procedure itself (3), and interpretation of data (10). The data interpretation measures were integrated into a single composite measure. Eight measures therefore were found to be appropriate quality measures for esophageal manometry Five other factors also were endorsed by the experts, although these were not ranked as appropriate quality measures. Conclusions: We identified 8 formally validated quality measures for the performance and interpretation of data from esophageal manometry on the basis of RAM. These measures represent key aspects of a high-quality esophageal manometry study and should be adopted uniformly. These measures should be evaluated in clinical practice to determine how they affect patient outcomes.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)526-534.e1
JournalClinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology
Volume14
Issue number4
DOIs
StatePublished - Apr 1 2016

Fingerprint

Manometry
Esophageal Motility Disorders
Unnecessary Procedures
Benchmarking
Los Angeles
Interviews

Keywords

  • Esophageal Manometry
  • High-Resolution Manometry
  • Quality Measures
  • RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Methodology

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Gastroenterology
  • Hepatology

Cite this

Identification of Quality Measures for Performance of and Interpretation of Data From Esophageal Manometry. / Yadlapati, Rena; Gawron, Andrew J.; Keswani, Rajesh N.; Bilimoria, Karl; Castell, Donald O.; Dunbar, Kerry B.; Gyawali, Chandra P.; Jobe, Blair A.; Katz, Philip O.; Katzka, David A.; Lacy, Brian E.; Massey, Benson T.; Richter, Joel E.; Schnoll-Sussman, Felice; Spechler, Stuart J.; Tatum, Roger; Vela, Marcelo F.; Pandolfino, John E.

In: Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Vol. 14, No. 4, 01.04.2016, p. 526-534.e1.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Yadlapati, R, Gawron, AJ, Keswani, RN, Bilimoria, K, Castell, DO, Dunbar, KB, Gyawali, CP, Jobe, BA, Katz, PO, Katzka, DA, Lacy, BE, Massey, BT, Richter, JE, Schnoll-Sussman, F, Spechler, SJ, Tatum, R, Vela, MF & Pandolfino, JE 2016, 'Identification of Quality Measures for Performance of and Interpretation of Data From Esophageal Manometry', Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology, vol. 14, no. 4, pp. 526-534.e1. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cgh.2015.10.006
Yadlapati, Rena ; Gawron, Andrew J. ; Keswani, Rajesh N. ; Bilimoria, Karl ; Castell, Donald O. ; Dunbar, Kerry B. ; Gyawali, Chandra P. ; Jobe, Blair A. ; Katz, Philip O. ; Katzka, David A. ; Lacy, Brian E. ; Massey, Benson T. ; Richter, Joel E. ; Schnoll-Sussman, Felice ; Spechler, Stuart J. ; Tatum, Roger ; Vela, Marcelo F. ; Pandolfino, John E. / Identification of Quality Measures for Performance of and Interpretation of Data From Esophageal Manometry. In: Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology. 2016 ; Vol. 14, No. 4. pp. 526-534.e1.
@article{abdc2d0c65c445d886f8088b762e83b2,
title = "Identification of Quality Measures for Performance of and Interpretation of Data From Esophageal Manometry",
abstract = "Background & Aims: Esophageal manometry is the standard for the diagnosis of esophageal motility disorders. Variations in the performance and interpretation of esophageal manometry result in discrepant diagnoses and unnecessary repeated procedures, and could have negative effects on patient outcomes. We need a method to benchmark the procedural quality of esophageal manometry; as such, our objective was to formally develop quality measures for the performance and interpretation of data from esophageal manometry. Methods: We used the RAND University of California Los Angeles Appropriateness Method (RAM) to develop validated quality measures for performing and interpreting esophageal manometry. The research team identified potential quality measures through a literature search and interviews with experts. Fourteen experts in esophageal manometry ranked the proposed quality measures for appropriateness via a 2-round process on the basis of RAM. Results: The experts considered a total of 29 measures; 17 were ranked as appropriate and were as follows: related to competency (2), assessment before the esophageal manometry procedure (2), the esophageal manometry procedure itself (3), and interpretation of data (10). The data interpretation measures were integrated into a single composite measure. Eight measures therefore were found to be appropriate quality measures for esophageal manometry Five other factors also were endorsed by the experts, although these were not ranked as appropriate quality measures. Conclusions: We identified 8 formally validated quality measures for the performance and interpretation of data from esophageal manometry on the basis of RAM. These measures represent key aspects of a high-quality esophageal manometry study and should be adopted uniformly. These measures should be evaluated in clinical practice to determine how they affect patient outcomes.",
keywords = "Esophageal Manometry, High-Resolution Manometry, Quality Measures, RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Methodology",
author = "Rena Yadlapati and Gawron, {Andrew J.} and Keswani, {Rajesh N.} and Karl Bilimoria and Castell, {Donald O.} and Dunbar, {Kerry B.} and Gyawali, {Chandra P.} and Jobe, {Blair A.} and Katz, {Philip O.} and Katzka, {David A.} and Lacy, {Brian E.} and Massey, {Benson T.} and Richter, {Joel E.} and Felice Schnoll-Sussman and Spechler, {Stuart J.} and Roger Tatum and Vela, {Marcelo F.} and Pandolfino, {John E.}",
year = "2016",
month = "4",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1016/j.cgh.2015.10.006",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "14",
pages = "526--534.e1",
journal = "Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology",
issn = "1542-3565",
publisher = "W.B. Saunders Ltd",
number = "4",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Identification of Quality Measures for Performance of and Interpretation of Data From Esophageal Manometry

AU - Yadlapati, Rena

AU - Gawron, Andrew J.

AU - Keswani, Rajesh N.

AU - Bilimoria, Karl

AU - Castell, Donald O.

AU - Dunbar, Kerry B.

AU - Gyawali, Chandra P.

AU - Jobe, Blair A.

AU - Katz, Philip O.

AU - Katzka, David A.

AU - Lacy, Brian E.

AU - Massey, Benson T.

AU - Richter, Joel E.

AU - Schnoll-Sussman, Felice

AU - Spechler, Stuart J.

AU - Tatum, Roger

AU - Vela, Marcelo F.

AU - Pandolfino, John E.

PY - 2016/4/1

Y1 - 2016/4/1

N2 - Background & Aims: Esophageal manometry is the standard for the diagnosis of esophageal motility disorders. Variations in the performance and interpretation of esophageal manometry result in discrepant diagnoses and unnecessary repeated procedures, and could have negative effects on patient outcomes. We need a method to benchmark the procedural quality of esophageal manometry; as such, our objective was to formally develop quality measures for the performance and interpretation of data from esophageal manometry. Methods: We used the RAND University of California Los Angeles Appropriateness Method (RAM) to develop validated quality measures for performing and interpreting esophageal manometry. The research team identified potential quality measures through a literature search and interviews with experts. Fourteen experts in esophageal manometry ranked the proposed quality measures for appropriateness via a 2-round process on the basis of RAM. Results: The experts considered a total of 29 measures; 17 were ranked as appropriate and were as follows: related to competency (2), assessment before the esophageal manometry procedure (2), the esophageal manometry procedure itself (3), and interpretation of data (10). The data interpretation measures were integrated into a single composite measure. Eight measures therefore were found to be appropriate quality measures for esophageal manometry Five other factors also were endorsed by the experts, although these were not ranked as appropriate quality measures. Conclusions: We identified 8 formally validated quality measures for the performance and interpretation of data from esophageal manometry on the basis of RAM. These measures represent key aspects of a high-quality esophageal manometry study and should be adopted uniformly. These measures should be evaluated in clinical practice to determine how they affect patient outcomes.

AB - Background & Aims: Esophageal manometry is the standard for the diagnosis of esophageal motility disorders. Variations in the performance and interpretation of esophageal manometry result in discrepant diagnoses and unnecessary repeated procedures, and could have negative effects on patient outcomes. We need a method to benchmark the procedural quality of esophageal manometry; as such, our objective was to formally develop quality measures for the performance and interpretation of data from esophageal manometry. Methods: We used the RAND University of California Los Angeles Appropriateness Method (RAM) to develop validated quality measures for performing and interpreting esophageal manometry. The research team identified potential quality measures through a literature search and interviews with experts. Fourteen experts in esophageal manometry ranked the proposed quality measures for appropriateness via a 2-round process on the basis of RAM. Results: The experts considered a total of 29 measures; 17 were ranked as appropriate and were as follows: related to competency (2), assessment before the esophageal manometry procedure (2), the esophageal manometry procedure itself (3), and interpretation of data (10). The data interpretation measures were integrated into a single composite measure. Eight measures therefore were found to be appropriate quality measures for esophageal manometry Five other factors also were endorsed by the experts, although these were not ranked as appropriate quality measures. Conclusions: We identified 8 formally validated quality measures for the performance and interpretation of data from esophageal manometry on the basis of RAM. These measures represent key aspects of a high-quality esophageal manometry study and should be adopted uniformly. These measures should be evaluated in clinical practice to determine how they affect patient outcomes.

KW - Esophageal Manometry

KW - High-Resolution Manometry

KW - Quality Measures

KW - RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Methodology

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84960858839&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84960858839&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.cgh.2015.10.006

DO - 10.1016/j.cgh.2015.10.006

M3 - Article

C2 - 26499925

AN - SCOPUS:84960858839

VL - 14

SP - 526-534.e1

JO - Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology

JF - Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology

SN - 1542-3565

IS - 4

ER -