Background/Aims: As the number of lower gastrointestinal endoscopies and high-risk examinees increases, the incidence of adverse events associated with these endoscopies has also increased. Medical disputes and lawsuits related to adverse events are rapidly increasing. Methods: Medical disputes related to lower gastrointestinal endoscopy that had been filed in Korean Medical Dispute Mediation and Arbitration Agency (K-medi) from April 2012 to August 2020 were evaluated with the corresponding medical records and written appraisal. Facilities, patients, procedures, adverse events, and outcome-related variables related to medical disputes were analyzed. Results: As the number of lower gastrointestinal endoscopies in Korea increases each year, the number of medical disputes related to lower gastrointestinal endoscopy appraised by K-medi has also increased yearly during the same period. Among the 121 cases analyzed, 86 (71.1%) were conciliated and 35 (28.9%) were cosigned by prosecution. Perforations accounted for the largest proportion of cases (93 cases, 76.9%). Most patients (n = 119, 98.3%) underwent non-emergent procedures, and only 10 (8.3%) underwent them for therapeutic purposes. Approximately one-fifth of the patients (n = 25, 20.7%) died. Conclusions The number of medical disputes related to lower gastrointestinal endoscopy are increasing. To prevent this, it is important to review the data on existing cases and establish specific response guidelines.

Background/Aims: As the number of lower gastrointestinal endoscopies and high-risk examinees increases, the incidence of adverse events associated with these endoscopies has also increased. Medical disputes and lawsuits related to adverse events are rapidly increasing. Methods: Medical disputes related to lower gastrointestinal endoscopy that had been filed in Korean Medical Dispute Mediation and Arbitration Agency (K-medi) from April 2012 to August 2020 were evaluated with the corresponding medical records and written appraisal. Facilities, patients, procedures, adverse events, and outcome-related variables related to medical disputes were analyzed. Results: As the number of lower gastrointestinal endoscopies in Korea increases each year, the number of medical disputes related to lower gastrointestinal endoscopy appraised by K-medi has also increased yearly during the same period. Among the 121 cases analyzed, 86 (71.1%) were conciliated and 35 (28.9%) were cosigned by prosecution. Perforations accounted for the largest proportion of cases (93 cases, 76.9%). Most patients (n = 119, 98.3%) underwent non-emergent procedures, and only 10 (8.3%) underwent them for therapeutic purposes. Approximately one-fifth of the patients (n = 25, 20.7%) died. Conclusions The number of medical disputes related to lower gastrointestinal endoscopy are increasing. To prevent this, it is important to review the data on existing cases and establish specific response guidelines.

Background/Aims: As the number of lower gastrointestinal endoscopies and high-risk examinees increases, the incidence of adverse events associated with these endoscopies has also increased. Medical disputes and lawsuits related to adverse events are rapidly increasing. Methods: Medical disputes related to lower gastrointestinal endoscopy that had been filed in Korean Medical Dispute Mediation and Arbitration Agency (K-medi) from April 2012 to August 2020 were evaluated with the corresponding medical records and written appraisal. Facilities, patients, procedures, adverse events, and outcome-related variables related to medical disputes were analyzed. Results: As the number of lower gastrointestinal endoscopies in Korea increases each year, the number of medical disputes related to lower gastrointestinal endoscopy appraised by K-medi has also increased yearly during the same period. Among the 121 cases analyzed, 86 (71.1%) were conciliated and 35 (28.9%) were cosigned by prosecution. Perforations accounted for the largest proportion of cases (93 cases, 76.9%). Most patients (n = 119, 98.3%) underwent non-emergent procedures, and only 10 (8.3%) underwent them for therapeutic purposes. Approximately one-fifth of the patients (n = 25, 20.7%) died. Conclusions The number of medical disputes related to lower gastrointestinal endoscopy are increasing. To prevent this, it is important to review the data on existing cases and establish specific response guidelines.

Background: The accuracy of Logical Observation Identifiers Names and Codes (LOINC) mappings is reportedly low, and the LOINC codes used for research purposes in Korea have not been validated for accuracy or usability. Our study aimed to evaluate the discrepancies and similarities in interoperability using existing LOINC mappings in actual patient care settings. Methods: We collected data on local test codes and their corresponding LOINC mappings from seven university hospitals. Our analysis focused on laboratory tests that are frequently requested, excluding clinical microbiology and molecular tests. Codes from nationwide proficiency tests served as intermediary benchmarks for comparison. A research team, comprising clinical pathologists and terminology experts, utilized the LOINC manual to reach a consensus on determining the most suitable LOINC codes. Results: A total of 235 LOINC codes were designated as optimal codes for 162 frequent tests.Among these, 51 test items, including 34 urine tests, required multiple optimal LOINC codes, primarily due to unnoted properties such as whether the test was quantitative or qualitative, or differences in measurement units. We analyzed 962 LOINC codes linked to 162 tests across seven institutions, discovering that 792 (82.3%) of these codes were consistent. Inconsistencies were most common in the analyte component (38 inconsistencies, 33.3%), followed by the method (33 inconsistencies, 28.9%), and properties (13 inconsistencies, 11.4%). Conclusion This study reveals a significant inconsistency rate of over 15% in LOINC mappings utilized for research purposes in university hospitals, underlining the necessity for expert verification to enhance interoperability in real patient care.

Background: The accuracy of Logical Observation Identifiers Names and Codes (LOINC) mappings is reportedly low, and the LOINC codes used for research purposes in Korea have not been validated for accuracy or usability. Our study aimed to evaluate the discrepancies and similarities in interoperability using existing LOINC mappings in actual patient care settings. Methods: We collected data on local test codes and their corresponding LOINC mappings from seven university hospitals. Our analysis focused on laboratory tests that are frequently requested, excluding clinical microbiology and molecular tests. Codes from nationwide proficiency tests served as intermediary benchmarks for comparison. A research team, comprising clinical pathologists and terminology experts, utilized the LOINC manual to reach a consensus on determining the most suitable LOINC codes. Results: A total of 235 LOINC codes were designated as optimal codes for 162 frequent tests.Among these, 51 test items, including 34 urine tests, required multiple optimal LOINC codes, primarily due to unnoted properties such as whether the test was quantitative or qualitative, or differences in measurement units. We analyzed 962 LOINC codes linked to 162 tests across seven institutions, discovering that 792 (82.3%) of these codes were consistent. Inconsistencies were most common in the analyte component (38 inconsistencies, 33.3%), followed by the method (33 inconsistencies, 28.9%), and properties (13 inconsistencies, 11.4%). Conclusion This study reveals a significant inconsistency rate of over 15% in LOINC mappings utilized for research purposes in university hospitals, underlining the necessity for expert verification to enhance interoperability in real patient care.

Background: The accuracy of Logical Observation Identifiers Names and Codes (LOINC) mappings is reportedly low, and the LOINC codes used for research purposes in Korea have not been validated for accuracy or usability. Our study aimed to evaluate the discrepancies and similarities in interoperability using existing LOINC mappings in actual patient care settings. Methods: We collected data on local test codes and their corresponding LOINC mappings from seven university hospitals. Our analysis focused on laboratory tests that are frequently requested, excluding clinical microbiology and molecular tests. Codes from nationwide proficiency tests served as intermediary benchmarks for comparison. A research team, comprising clinical pathologists and terminology experts, utilized the LOINC manual to reach a consensus on determining the most suitable LOINC codes. Results: A total of 235 LOINC codes were designated as optimal codes for 162 frequent tests.Among these, 51 test items, including 34 urine tests, required multiple optimal LOINC codes, primarily due to unnoted properties such as whether the test was quantitative or qualitative, or differences in measurement units. We analyzed 962 LOINC codes linked to 162 tests across seven institutions, discovering that 792 (82.3%) of these codes were consistent. Inconsistencies were most common in the analyte component (38 inconsistencies, 33.3%), followed by the method (33 inconsistencies, 28.9%), and properties (13 inconsistencies, 11.4%). Conclusion This study reveals a significant inconsistency rate of over 15% in LOINC mappings utilized for research purposes in university hospitals, underlining the necessity for expert verification to enhance interoperability in real patient care.