High-quality procedure reports are a cornerstone of high-quality pediatric endoscopy as they ensure the clear communication of procedural events and outcomes, guide patient care and facilitate continuous quality improvement. The aim of this document is to outline standardized reporting elements that achieved international consensus as requirements for high-quality pediatric endoscopy procedure reports.

With support from the North American and European Societies of Pediatric Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Nutrition (NASPGHAN and ESPGHAN), an international working group of the Pediatric Endoscopy Quality Improvement Network (PEnQuIN) used Delphi methodology to identify key elements that should be found in all pediatric endoscopy reports. Item reduction was attained through iterative rounds of anonymized online voting using a 6-point scale. Responses were analyzed after each round and items were excluded from subsequent rounds if ≤50% of panelists rated them as 5 ("agree moderately") or 6 ("agree strongly"). Reporting elements that ≥70% of panelists rated as "agree moderately" or "agree strongly" were considered to have achieved consensus.

Twenty-six PEnQuIN group members from 25 centers internationally rated 63 potential reporting elements that were generated from a systematic literature review and the Delphi panelists. The response rates were 100% for all three survey rounds. Thirty reporting elements reached consensus as essential for inclusion within a pediatric endoscopy report.

It is recommended that the PEnQuIN Reporting Elements for pediatric endoscopy be universally employed across all endoscopists, procedures and facilities as a foundational means of ensuring high-quality endoscopy services, while facilitating quality improvement activities in pediatric endoscopy.

This was a cross-sectional study designed to evaluate the subjective understanding of technical terms and contents of the informed consent forms given to patients about to undergo conscious sedative upper gastrointestinal endoscopy.

A group of conveniently selected 180 patients, who were undergoing sedative endoscopy were recruited in the endoscopy procedure room in a tertiary hospital from June to July 2011. Data were collected with a structured questionnaire.

The average number of terms exposed was 8.12 out of 10 items, the average number of terms understood well by the patients was 5.53 out of 10 items, and the average number of right answers was 3.30 out of 5 items, and the percent of correct answers ranged from 26.1% to 90.0%. The exposure to terms differed by gender, education, and previous exposure to sedative endoscopy procedures. The number of "understanding of the terms well" responses differed according to age and previous exposure to sedative endoscopy procedures, and the correct answer rate was differed by education.

The understanding of the terms and knowledge about the procedures were disappointing. Therefore, sufficient explanations should be provided to the patients. While the informed consent was taken by doctors, the level of understanding should be monitored by nurses. In particular, subjects who did not have any previous experience with endoscopy procedures showed relatively lower level of understanding. We recommend that medical terms should be replaced with more common and nontechnical words in consent forms.

To determine the sedation practices and preferences of Nigerian endoscopists for routine diagnostic upper gastrointestinal endoscopy.

A structured questionnaire containing questions related to sedation practices and safety procedures was administered to Nigerian gastrointestinal endoscopists at the 2011 annual conference of the Society for Gastroenterology and Hepatology in Nigeria which was held at Ibadan, June 23-35, 2011.

Of 35 endoscopists who responded, 17 (48.6%) used sedation for less than 25% of procedures, while 14 (40.0%) used sedation for more than 75% of upper gastrointestinal endoscopies. The majority of respondents (22/35 or 62.9%) had less than 5 years experience in gastrointestinal endoscopy. The sedative of choice was benzodiazepine alone in the majority of respondents (85.7%). Opioid use (alone or in combination with benzodiazepines) was reported by only 5 respondents (14.3%). None of the respondents had had any experience with propofol. Non-anaesthesiologist-directed sedation was practiced by 91.4% of endoscopists. Monitoring of oxygen saturation during sedation was practiced by only 57.1% of respondents. Over half of the respondents (18/35 or 51.4%) never used supplemental oxygen for diagnostic upper gastrointestinal endoscopy.

Sedation for routine diagnostic upper gastrointestinal endoscopy in Nigeria is characterized by lack of guidelines, and differs markedly from that in developed countries.

Only a few reports have examined informed consent for gastrointestinal endoscopy in Korea. The aim of this study was to evaluate the appropriateness of the informed consent procedure in Korea.

A total of 209 patients who underwent endoscopy were asked to answer a self-administered structured questionnaire on the informed consent procedure for gastrointestinal endoscopy.

One hundred thirteen patients completed questionnaires and were enrolled. In the survey, 91.2% answered that they understood the procedure, and the degree of understanding decreased with age; 85.8% were informed of the risks of the procedure, and the proportion was higher for inpatients and for those receiving therapeutic endoscopy or endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography; 60.2% were informed of alternative methods, and the proportion was higher in older patients; 76.1% had the opportunity to ask questions during the informed consent procedure, and the proportion was higher in inpatients. The understanding of the risks of the endoscopic procedure was better in the younger and more highly educated groups. About 80% had sedation before endoscopy, and only 56% were informed of the risks of sedation during endoscopy.

The current informed consent process may be reasonably acceptable and understandable to the patients. However, the understanding of the risks of endoscopy was insufficient especially in the cases of older, poorly educated patients and outpatients. The information about alternatives, the opportunity to ask for additional information, and the information about the risks of sedation during endoscopy were also insufficient in the current consent process.

There are many differences and deficiencies in the process of informed consent. The aim of this study was to get the view of gastrointestinal endoscopists in Croatia on obtaining patients' consent before endoscopic procedures.

During the 2004 annual meeting of the Croatian Society of Gastroenterology, endoscopists were asked to answer a questionnaire according to common clinical practice in affiliated institutions. It included questions on endoscopists' experience and education in medical ethics, as well as on the nature and quality of information given to patients and their opinion on proposed measures for improvement of the informed consent process.

The questionnaire was distributed to 96 endoscopists attending the meeting and the response rate was 54% (52/96). In only 50% of institutions was the obtained consent written and potential complications of endoscopic procedures are occasionally given to the patient. In the minority of cases the patient is provided with information about alternative diagnostic tests and/or treatment options, and the information about mortality rate was almost never discussed.

In Croatia, the process of informed consent for endoscopy needs improvement and should be regarded against the background of education in medical ethics, regional burden in endoscopic practice and appropriateness of by-laws and local guidelines.

In the era of the new millennium, a lot of preclinical and clinical research is published. However, ethico-legal, cost-effectiveness and patient care issues are not addressed equally.

To investigate whether abstracts presented at major international gastroenterology congresses refer to issues relevant to doctor-patient relationship, cost-effectiveness and care.

We reviewed the abstracts on disk CD-ROMs of the United European Gastroenterology Week (UEGW) and the Digestive Disease Week (DDW), for the years 1998-2006. We used the following keywords: ethical/ethically, legal, consent, cost-effective/effectiveness, care, quality and tolerable/tolerability.

Over the study period, 1,612/20,018 (8.05%) and 764/45,628 (1.67%) abstracts including the above keywords were presented at UEGW and DDW congresses (p = 0.013), respectively. Statistically significant more abstracts containing separately any of the key words (apart from 'legal') were presented at the UEGW than at the DDW congress. There was a significant trend of increased referring to these key words over the study period for UEGW (p < 0.041) but not for DDW congresses (p = 0.70).

The abstracts presented at the UEGW refer to ethico-legal, cost-effectiveness and patient care issues more frequently than those presented at the DDW. There is a trend of increased referring to these subjects at the UEGW but not at the DDW.

Over the past 30 years, the population of old-aged citizens in most Western countries has been dramatically increasing. These people usually have several comorbidities and often lose their independence, mostly due to neurodegenerating diseases. Benign and malignant gastrointestinal disorders are very common in all age groups, but their incidence increases with age, requiring investigation and therapy. In this setting several ethical issues arise, mostly related to the extent of invasive investigations, adverse drug reactions due to polypharmacy, the risk:benefit ratio of endoscopic therapy, and the quality and validity of informed consent in this frail elderly population.