Optimising the indications for biliary stent placement during endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography: a quality improvement initiative to enhance patient care and reduce healthcare resource utilisation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background A retrospective chart audit was performed to review biliary stent utilisation from January 2020 to January 2021. Non-guideline-based stent insertion was identified in 16% of patients with common bile duct (CBD) stones presenting for endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). To improve this knowledge-practice gap, a quality improvement (QI) intervention was devised and trialled. Aim To synchronise clinical indications for biliary stent insertion in patients with CBD stones in accordance with published guidelines. Methods Using a QI pre–post study design, chart audits were completed and shared with the ERCP team (n=6). Indication for biliary stent insertion was compared to published guidelines assessed by two reviewers independently ( kappa statistic calculated). The QI intervention included an education session and quarterly practice audits. An interrupted time series with segmented regression was completed. Results A total of 661 patients (337 F), mean age 59±19 years (range 12–98 years), underwent 885 ERCPs during this postintervention period. Of 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 with the preintervention year (223/598, 37%, p=0.2). Furthermore, 13/192 stents (7%) were placed not in accordance with published guidelines ( kappa =0.53), compared with 63/223 (28%) in the preintervention year (p<0.0001). A 75% reduction in overall avoidable stent placement was achieved with a direct cost avoidance of $C97 500. For the CBD stone subgroup, there was an 88% reduction in avoidable biliary stent placement compared with the preintervention year (8/384, 2% vs 61/375, 16%, p<0.0001). Conclusions Education with audit and feedback supported the closing of a knowledge-to-practice gap for biliary stent insertion during ERCP, especially in patients with CBD stones. This has resulted in a notable reduction of avoidable stent placements and additional follow-up ERCPs and an overall saving of healthcare resources.
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 | 0.000 | 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".