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.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Alhaidari et al. (2024) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: