Hard to Swallow Results

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.