This is the authors' abstract. We don't add key points for this paper.
The Asociación Española de Pancreatología (AESPANC), Asociación Española de Gastroenterología (AEG), and Sociedad Española de Patología Digestiva (SEPD) have developed a consensus document on the characteristics and recommendations that are deemed essential for the organization of pancreas units within gastroenterology services (GSs).The goal is to facilitate that such units develop their care activities with efficiency and quality.The consensus document defines pancreas units and lays down the characteristics they should have in terms of organization, structure, care services on offer, and teaching and research activities.Some of these characteristics are mandatory requirements whereas others represent recommendations.Compliance with these characteristics will render Pancreas Units eligible for excellence certification.These characteristics will be updated according to advances in the understanding of pancreatic disease.Finally, pancreas units must define indicators allowing to assess their results and their impact in terms of health. ABSTRACTThe Asociación Española de Pancreatología (AESPANC), Asociación Española de Gastroenterología (AEG), and Sociedad Española de Patología Digestiva (SEPD) have developed a consensus document on the standards and recommendations they consider essential for the organization of pancreas units (PUs) within gastroenterology services (GSs) in order to conduct their activities in an efficient, high-quality manner.The consensus document defines PUs and lays down standards relating to their organization, structure, service portfolio, processes, and teaching and research activities.Standards have been categorized as mandatory (requirements to be met to qualify for certification by the scientific societies responsible for the standards) or recommendations.Standards should be updated at most within five years based on the experience gained in Spanish PUs and the advance of knowledge regarding pancreas disease.Development of health outcome indicators, including patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), is considered a relevant challenge, as is evidence on the association of PU structure and activity standards with health outcomes.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Domínguez‐Muñoz et al. (2024) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: