A81 OPTIMIZING THE INDICATIONS FOR BILIARY STENT PLACEMENT IN PATIENTS WITH CBD STONES: A QUALITY IMPROVEMENT INITIATIVE TO ENHANCE PATIENT CARE AND REDUCE HEALTHCARE RESOURCE UTILIZATION
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background A retrospective chart audit was performed to review biliary stent utilization from January 2020 to 2021 at the University of Alberta Hospital (UAH). Inappropriate stent usage was identified in 16% of patients with common bile duct (CBD) stones presenting for endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). To improve this clinical practice, a quality improvement (QI) initiative was developed and completed. Purpose To reduce the number of inappropriately inserted biliary stents in patients with CBD stones. Method The results of the chart audit (pre-intervention) were shared with the ERCP group. The QI intervention was to align biliary stent insertion in accordance with published guidelines. A chart audit (post-intervention) was then performed on all ERCPs from July, 2021 to June, 2022. The indication for biliary stent insertion was assessed independently by two blinded reviewers. Result(s) A total of 661 patients (337 F) with mean age of 59±19 years (range 12-98 years) underwent 885 ERCPs during this post-intervention period. Of the 661 patients, 384 (58%) were referred for CBD stones. A total of 192 biliary stents (105 plastic, 85 metal) were placed during the first ERCP (192/661, 29%), as compared to the pre-intervention year (223/598, 37%, p=ns). However, only 13/192 stents (7%) were placed not in accordance with published guidelines (kappa=0.53), compared with 63/223 (28%) in the pre-intervention year (p<0.0001). This accounts for a 75% reduction in overall unnecessary stent placement. This reduction was mainly seen in the CBD stone subgroup, where there was an 88% reduction in inappropriate biliary stent placement compared to the pre-intervention year (8/384, 2% vs. 61/376, 16%, p<0.0001). Image Conclusion(s) Education to align practice in accordance with published guidelines has demonstrated a significant improvement in biliary stent insertion during ERCP in patients with CBD stones. This has resulted in significantly fewer inappropriate stent placements, a reduction in unnecessary follow-up ERCPs, and an overall saving of healthcare resources. Please acknowledge all funding agencies by checking the applicable boxes below None Disclosure of Interest None Declared
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".