Abstract
The American Neurogastroenterology and Motility Society (ANMS) proposed quality measures (QMs) for performance and interpretation of esophageal manometry (EM). We implemented a quality improvement (QI) study at a large community hospital to assess and improve procedural adherence and interpretation of EM studies based on the ANMS QMs using the Chicago Classification 3.0 (CC) Guidelines. For pre-intervention, three motility independent reviewers reinterpreted 60 EM studies conducted by community gastroenterologists without Tier II–III motility training from October to December 2018 for compliance with pre-procedural, procedural, and data interpretation ANMS QMs. In December 2018, we developed a pre-procedural form, educated nurses on EM procedural compliance, and provided preliminary pre-intervention results to gastroenterologists along with literature utilizing the CC 3.0 Guidelines. For post-intervention, we reinterpreted 54 EM studies from January to August 2019 and investigated whether they met QMs for data interpretation with respect to the CC Guidelines and resulted in appropriate treatment. We found a statistically significant improvement in procedural compliance among nursing staff for 30 s of swallows (76% post-intervention versus 12% pre-intervention, p < 0.001) and 7 evaluable swallows (94% post-intervention versus 53% pre-intervention, p < 0.001). However, quality metrics within data interpretation by physicians post-intervention showed mixed results. An incorrect diagnosis was made in 50% (n = 27)) of studies with 72% (n = 39) having at least one missing item based on the CC. The most missed diagnosis was fragmented peristalsis (30%, n = 29). Among the 39% (n = 21) of surgery referrals, 24% (n = 5) were incorrectly referred. Our study shows poor data interpretation by community gastroenterologists without formal motility training despite adequate performance by nursing staff. This further supports the need for a national ANMS certification process for formal HRM education.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Carlson DA, Kahrilas PJ. How to effectively use high-resolution esophageal manometry. Gastroenterology. 2016;151(5):789–92. https://doi.org/10.1053/j.gastro.2016.09.024.
Chan WW, Haroian LR, Gyawali CP. Value of preoperative esophageal function studies before laparoscopic antireflux surgery. Surg Endosc. 2011;25(9):2943–9. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-011-1646-9.
Waring JP, Hunter JG, Oddsdottir M, Wo J, Katz E. The preoperative evaluation of patients considered for laparoscopic antireflux surgery. Am J Gastroenterol. 1995;90(1):35–8.
Yadlapati R, Gawron AJ, Keswani RN, et al. Identification of quality measures for performance of and interpretation of data from esophageal manometry. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2016;14(4):526–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cgh.2015.10.006.
Kahrilas PJ, Bredenoord AJ, Fox M, et al. The Chicago classification of esophageal motility disorders, v.30. Neurogastroenterol Motil. 2015;27(2):160–74. https://doi.org/10.1111/nmo.12477.
Parkman HP. Training in gastrointestinal motility. Dig Dis. 2006;24(3–4):221–7. https://doi.org/10.1159/000092875.
Gyawali CP, Savarino E, Lazarescu A, et al. Curriculum for neurogastroenterology and motility training: a report from the joint ANMS-ESNM task force. Neurogastroenterol Motil. 2018;30:e13341. https://doi.org/10.1111/nmo.13341.
Jarvis M, Thompson E, Moshiree B. P0299- A rare case of muscular dystrophy in an adult diagnosed by suspicion on high resolution esophageal manometry. Program No. P0299. ACG 2019 Annual Scientific Meeting Abstracts. San Antonio, TX: American College of Gasteroenterology; 2019.
Gyawali CP, Sifrim D, Carlson DA, Hawn M, Katzka DA, Pandolfino JE, Penagini R, Roman S, Savarino E, Tatum R, Vaezi M, Clarke JO, Triadafilopoulos G. Ineffective esophageal motility: concepts, future directions, and conclusions from the Stanford 2018 symposium. Neurogastroenterol Motil. 2019;31(9):e13584. https://doi.org/10.1111/nmo.13584.
Gyawali CP, Zerbib F, Bhatia S, Cisternas D, Coss-Adame E, Lazarescu A, Pohl D, Yadlapati R, Penagini R, Pandolfino J. Chicago classification update (V4.0): technical review on diagnostic criteria for ineffective esophageal motility and absent contractility. Neurogastroenterol Motil. 2021. https://doi.org/10.1111/nmo.14134.
Addo A, George P, Zahiri HR, Park A. Patients with ineffective esophageal motility benefit from laparoscopic antireflux surgery. Surg Endosc. 2020. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-020-07951-4.
Jain A, Baker JR, Chen JW. In ineffective esophageal motility, failed swallows are more functionally relevant than weak swallows. Neurogastroenterol Motil. 2018;30(6):e13297. https://doi.org/10.1111/nmo.13297.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The authors whose names are listed in this study certify that they have NO affiliations with or involvement in any organization or entity with any financial interest or non-financial interest in the subject matter or materials discussed in this manuscript.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
S. Saboori and M. Jarvis are co-first authors.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Saboori, S., Jarvis, M., Baker, J. et al. Hard to Swallow Results. Dysphagia 37, 863–867 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00455-021-10344-x
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00455-021-10344-x