UEG's content platform for gastroenterology education bringing recordings, courses, guidelines, and more together in one place.

UEG Week Berlin 2025 Recordings Gut Guide online What's new on Gutflix

Trending on Gutflix

Rate for better recommendations!

Your feedback helps us show you more of what you like and less of what you dislike!

More of this!

We will show you more similar content.

Not for me!

We won't suggest this again.

Bookmark!

Save this content for later!

New to myUEG? Create an account! Log In with myUEG account

UEG Poster

Standard Poster

Share via Email Share on Facebook Share on X Share on LinkedIn Share on Bluesky

This content is part of Gutflix. Log in with your myUEG account, or create one free, to watch it.

Not sure what you can access? Learn more about account types.

OPTIMIZING EFFICIENCY IN ADVANCED ENDOSCOPY: DISCOVERING INTERNATIONAL BEST PRACTICES THROUGH A COLLABORATIVE STUDY ON TURNOVER TIME

Marina Kim 1, Amy Tyberg 2, Haroon Shahid 2, Avik Sarkar 2, Paul Muna Aguon 3, Muhammad Baig 3, Dillon Miller 4, Alyson Ross 5, Wesley Jones 5, Veeral Oza 5, Paolo Giorgio Arcidiacono 6, Giuseppe Vanella 7, Shyam Thakkar 8, George Obeng 8, Ayowumi Adekolu 8, Shailendra Singh 8, Monica Gaidhane 3, Martha Graciela Arevalo Mora 9, Jorge Baquerizo-Burgos 9, Domenica Cunto 9, Maria Egas Izquierdo 9, Juan Alcivar-Vasquez 9, Miguel Puga-Tejada 9, Raquel Del Valle Zavala 9, Carlos Robles-Medranda 10

Affiliations

1 St.Louis University, St.Louis, United States

2 Rutgers Robert Wood Johnson, New Brunswick, United States

3 Robert Wood Johnson Medical School Rutgers University, New Brunswick, United States

4 Robert Wood Johnson University Hospital, New Brunswick, United States

5 Prisma Health, Greenville, United States

6 IRCCS Ospedale San Raffaele, Milano, Italy

7 IRCCS San Raffaele Institute, Milan, Italy

8 West Virginia University, Morgantown, United States

9 Instituto Ecuatoriano de Enfermedades Digestivas (IECED), Guayaquil, Ecuador

10 Instituto Ecuatoriano De Enfermedades Digestivas (IECED) -University Hospital Omni, Guayaquil, Ecuador

Summary

AI Generated

A five-center retrospective study comparing endoscopy room turnover times across US, Italy, and Ecuador found US centers had significantly longer turnover times (39.5 minutes) compared to Italy (11.6 minutes) and Ecuador (15.7 minutes) despite similar procedure types and durations.

US centers showed turnover times over 20 minutes longer than Italy and Ecuador centers, a statistically significant difference (p < 0.00001)
The three regions had similar proportions of EUS and ERCP procedures and comparable procedure times (US 45 minutes, Italy 42 minutes), yet turnover times differed markedly
The study analyzed 1,200 endoscopy cases performed between January and November 2022 across five centers, with turnover time defined as the interval from one patient leaving the room until the next patient entering
The authors suggest the findings highlight an opportunity to optimize endoscopy unit efficiency in the US by studying practices in international centers with shorter turnover times
This material would be of interest to endoscopy unit administrators, advanced endoscopists, and healthcare operations professionals focused on procedural efficiency

Download PDF

Was this helpful?

Thanks for your feedback.

This summary was generated by an AI large language model based on the content transcript. It is for informational purposes only and should not be considered a substitute for clinical judgment. Always rely on your professional expertise and the full clinical context when making clinical decisions.

Abstract

Introduction

As the demand for advanced endoscopy procedures grows worldwide, endoscopy units specializing in these procedures face significant challenges in meeting this demand with limited resources. Consequently, there is an urgent need to optimize endoscopy unit efficiency. Previous studies have highlighted non-procedural factors, including room turnover, as a key area to improve efficiency. However, turnover time in advanced endoscopy units varies considerably across the world. To address this issue, our study aims to compare turnover time in different regions globally to identify best practices for enhancing endoscopy unit efficiency.

Aims & Methods

We conducted a retrospective chart review of endoscopic procedures performed between January 2022 and November 2022 in five centers (two in the US, one in Italy, and one in Ecuador) to collect data. Both inpatient and outpatient procedures were included. We categorized the procedures into three groups based on their regions: US, Europe, and Latin America. Turnover time was defined as the time elapsed from one patient leaving the room until the next patient entering the room. Procedure time was defined as the duration from the first scope being inserted to the last scope being removed. We used t-tests to compare the turnover time between the different regions.

Results

Our study analyzed a total of 1,200 cases from three different regions: US (n=910), Italy (n=107), and Ecuador (n=183). Some patients underwent multiple procedures during the same session (Table 1).Among the US group, 34% of procedures were ERCP, 23% were EUS, 23% were EGD, and 14% were colonoscopies. Out of the 910 cases, 655 (73%) were performed on an outpatient basis. The average turnover time for the US group was 39.5 minutes, and the average procedure time was 45 minutes.In the Italy group, 35% of procedures were ERCP, 47% were EUS, and 8% were EGD. Out of the 107 cases, 61 (57%) were performed on an outpatient basis. The average turnover time for the Italy group was 11.6 minutes, and the average procedure time was 42 minutes.Within the Ecuador group, 31% of procedures were ERCP, 32% were EUS, and 4% were EGD. Out of the 183 cases, 141 (77%) were performed on an outpatient basis. The average turnover time for the Ecuador group was 15.7 minutes, and the average procedure time was 131 minutes. In 47 cases (25.7%), more than one endoscopy procedure was performed during the same session.Comparing the results, the US group had a significantly higher turnover time by over 20 minutes compared to the other regions (p < .00001). However, there was no significant difference in the number of EUS and ERCP procedures between the groups.

Country	US (N = 910)	Italy (N=107)	Ecuador (N = 183)
Advanced Endoscopy Procedures General Endoscopy Procedures	884 (97%) 25 (3%)	41 (38.3%) 66 (61.7%)	119 (65%) 64 (35%)
Inpatient Outpatient	246 (27%) 655 (73%)	46 (43%) 61 (57%)	42 (23%) 141 (77%)
ERCP (Including EUS/ERCP) EUS EGD Colonoscopy Other	307 (34%) 212 (23%) 208 (23%) 125 (14%) 58 (7%)	37 (35%) 50 (47%) 8 (8%) 12 (11%) 0	57 (31%) 58 (32%) 82 (45%) 72 (39%) 3 (2%)
Turnover time (min)	39.5	11.6	15.7
Scope in-out time (min)	45	42	131

Conclusion

The results of our study demonstrate a significant difference in turnover time between the US and Italy/Ecuador despite similar numbers of EUS and ERCP procedures and comparable or lower procedure times. With a difference of over 20 minutes, this highlights the urgent need for optimizing the efficiency of endoscopy units in the US. To achieve this, further comparative studies between the US and international centers are necessary. Our findings provide a valuable starting point for developing best practices and strategies to enhance endoscopy unit efficiency and meet the growing demand for these procedures.

Conference

UEG Week Copenhagen 2023

Submission format

Abstract

Session

PP 10 Health economics / Digitalisation in GI / Education In GI / Gender and diversity (Posters)

Citation

United European Gastroenterology Journal 2023; 11 (Supplement 8)

Published

2023

More Like This:

A CONTROLLED, RANDOMIZED CLINICAL TRIAL ON MANNITOL VERSUS PEG-ASC FOR BOWEL PREPARATION. EFFICACY AND SAFETY RESULTS FROM SATISFACTION STUDY

Anna Orsatti

COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF EFFICACY AND SAFETY BETWEEN ORAL SODIUM SULFATE TABLET AND 1 L POLYETHYLENE GLYCOL PLUS ASCORBATE

Dong-Hoon Yang

REDO TRANSORAL OUTLET REDUCTION (RE-TORE): TECHNICAL FEASIBILITY AND MEDIUM-TERM OUTCOMES

Giulia Polidori

MITOCHONDRIA-TARGETED DELIVERY OF HYDROGEN SULFIDE (H2S)-PRODRUG COUNTERACTS GASTROTOXICITY OF NON-STEROIDAL ANTI-INFLAMMATORY DRUGS. INVOLVEMENT OF HEME OXYGENASE PATHWAY

Aleksandra Danielak

BENEFITS OF BOWEL PREPARATION FOR URGENT COLONOSCOPY IN PATIENTS WITH COLONIC DIVERTICULAR BLEEDING: A MULTICENTER RETROSPECTIVE STUDY WITH PROPENSITY SCORE MATCHING ANALYSIS

Makoto Eizuka

RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL OF EFFICACY OF MOSAPRIDE ON RECOVERY OF INTESTINAL MOTILITY AFTER ELECTIVE COLORECTAL CANCER SURGERY

Tharin Thampongsa

UEG Poster

Standard Poster

Share via Email Share on Facebook Share on X Share on LinkedIn Share on Bluesky

This content is part of Gutflix. Log in with your myUEG account, or create one free, to watch it.

Not sure what you can access? Learn more about account types.

A CONTROLLED, RANDOMIZED CLINICAL TRIAL ON MANNITOL VERSUS PEG-ASC FOR BOWEL PREPARATION. EFFICACY AND SAFETY RESULTS FROM SATISFACTION STUDY

Maurizio Vecchi 1,2, Gian Eugenio Tontini 2,1, Giancarla Fiori 3, Paolo Bocus 4, Renato Cannizzaro 5, Marino Carnovali 6, Bruno Mario Casana 7, Paola Cesaro 8, Guido Costamagna 9,10, Dhanai Di Paolo 11, Luca Elli 2, Olga Fedorishina 12, Carsten Hinkel 13, Ralf Jacobs 14, Sergey V. Kashin 15, Gianpiero Manes 16, Ekaterina Melnikova 17, Anna Orsatti 18, Thierry Ponchon 19, Alberto Prada 20, Franco Radaelli 11, Alessandro Rimondi 1, Sandro Sferrazza 21, Pietro Soru 3, Pier Alberto Testoni 22, Jean-Christophe Valats 23, Victor V. Veselov 24, Cristiano Spada 8, Peter Uebel 13

Affiliations

1 University of Milan, Milano, Italy

2 Foundation IRCCS Ca' Granda Ospedale Maggiore Policlinico University of Milan, Milan, Italy

3 Istituto Europeo di Oncologia, IRCCS, Milan, Italy

4 IRCCS Sacro Cuore Don Calabria, Negrar di Valpolicella, Italy

5 Centro di Riferimento Oncologico (CRO) Aviano IRCCS, Aviano, Italy

6 Ospedale Papa Giovanni XXIII, Bergamo, Italy

7 University of Brescia, Brescia, Italy

8 Fondazione Poliambulanza – Istituto Ospedaliero, Brescia, Italy

9 Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli-IRCCS, Roma, Italy

10 Università Cattolica S. Cuore, Rome, Italy

11 Ospedale Valduce, Como, Italy

12 Ministry of Health of the Russian Federation, Irkutsk, Russian Federation

13 Im Haus der Gesundheit, Ludwigshafen am Rhein, Germany

14 Klinikum der Stadt Ludwigshafen, Ludwigshafen, Germany

15 Yaroslavl Clinical Oncology Hospital, Yaroslavl, Russian Federation

16 Asst Rhodense, Presidi di Rho e Garbagnate, Garbagnate, Italy

17 Medical Center of Diagnostics and Prevention, Yaroslavl, Russian Federation

18 NTC, Milan, Italy

19 Edouard Herriot University Hospital, Lyon, France

20 Istituto Auxologico Italiano, Milano, Italy

21 Santa Chiara Hospital, Trento, Italy

22 IRCCS Ospedale San Raffaele, Milano, Italy

23 Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Montpellier, Montpellier, France

24 State Scientific Center of Coloproctology named after A. N. Ryzhykh, Moscow, Russian Federation