Semrad, Carol E.

INTRODUCTION: Capsule endoscopy (CE) and deep enteroscopy (DE) can be useful for diagnosing and treating suspected small-bowel disease. Guidelines and detailed recommendations exist for the use of CE/DE, but comprehensive quality indicators are lacking. The goal of this task force was to develop quality indicators for appropriate use of CE/DE by using a modified RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method. METHODS: An expert panel of 7 gastroenterologists with diverse practice experience was assembled to identify quality indicators. A literature review was conducted to develop a list of proposed quality indicators applicable to preprocedure, intraprocedure, and postprocedure periods. The panelists reviewed the literature; identified and modified proposed quality indicators; rated them on the basis of scientific evidence, validity, and necessity; and determined proposed performance targets. Agreement and consensus with the proposed indicators were verified using the RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method. RESULTS: The voting procedure to prioritize metrics emphasized selecting measures to improve quality and overall patient care. Panelists rated indicators on the perceived appropriateness and necessity for clinical practice. After voting and discussion, 2 quality indicators ranked as inappropriate or uncertain were excluded. Each quality indicator was categorized by measure type, performance target, and summary of evidence. The task force identified 13 quality indicators for CE and DE. DISCUSSION: Comprehensive quality indicators have not existed for CE or DE. The task force identified quality indicators that can be incorporated into clinical practice. The panel also addressed existing knowledge gaps and posed research questions to better inform future research and quality guidelines for these procedures.

AbstractDiarrhea is best defined as passage of loose stools often with more frequent bowel movements. For clinical purposes, theBristolStoolFormScale works well to distinguish stool form and to identify loose stools. Laboratory testing of stool consistency has lagged behind. Acute diarrhea is likely to be due to infection and to be self‐limited. As diarrhea becomes chronic, it is less likely to be due to infection; duration of 1 month seems to work well as a cut‐off for chronic diarrhea, but detailed scientific knowledge is missing about the utility of this definition. In addition to duration of diarrhea, classifications by presenting scenario, by pathophysiology, and by stool characteristics (e.g. watery, fatty, or inflammatory) may help the canny clinician refine the differential diagnosis of chronic diarrhea. In this regard, a careful history remains the essential part of the evaluation of a patient with diarrhea. Imaging the intestine with endoscopy and radiographic techniques is useful, and biopsy of the small intestine and colon for histological assessment provides key diagnostic information. Endomicroscopy and molecular pathology are only now being explored for the diagnosis of chronic diarrhea. Interest in the microbiome of the gut is increasing; aside from a handful of well‐described infections because of pathogens, little is known about alterations in the microbiome in chronic diarrhea. Serological tests have well‐defined roles in the diagnosis of celiac disease but have less clearly defined application in autoimmune enteropathies and inflammatory bowel disease. Measurement of peptide hormones is of value in the diagnosis and management of endocrine tumors causing diarrhea, but these are so rare that these tests are of little value in screening because there will be many more false‐positives than true‐positive results. Chemical analysis of stools is of use in classifying chronic diarrhea and may limit the differential diagnosis that must be considered, but interpretation of the results is still evolving. Breath tests for assessment of carbohydrate malabsorption, small bowel bacterial overgrowth, and intestinal transit are fraught with technical limitations that decrease sensitivity and specificity. Likewise, tests of bile acid malabsorption have had limited utility beyond empirical trials of bile acid sequestrants.