1) ERCPInfo aims to help better inform patients about the risks of ERCP. The author believes most NHS patients are being misinformed.

2) To alert patients to the considerations they should have before agreeing to ERCP. The author informs about: the nature and reliability of the evidence for ERCP; the differences in practice between hospitals; how to reduce the risk of unnecessary treatment.

3) To list the questions patients should ask their doctors. Asking these will help to establish how much one can trust what one is being told; if one’s illness is unlikely to resolve by itself; if the seriousness of the condition justifies the risks of ERCP.

If you, or anyone you know, is about to have ERCP, the author suggests you read on:

The first thing that the author wishes to declare is that he is not a doctor. He has learnt about ERCP the hard way: following the death of his partner who underwent ERCP to treat a condition she turned out not to have! The author subsequently conducted his own investigation into how and why his partner died. The lessons he learnt so concerned him that he felt he just had to publish, in the interest of patient safety, his findings: but in a way that would be most helpful to future potential ERCP patients and their families.

The information on this web-site particularly pertains to UK NHS Hospitals; it may not be as relevant to other countries. The author's research focused in particular on ERCP when it is used as a means of removing stones from the Common Bile Duct (CBD): the condition his partner was told she had. This web-site is therefore particularly appropriate for such patients. Patients with other conditions will nontheless find most of the information useful.

WARNING: readers may find the information provided disturbing and it may put some potential patients off proceeding with ERCP. For some, this may be the right course of action; for others it might not be. The author's aim is only to help inform patients to the level needed for them to be able to give their fully informed consent for the procedure.

The author encourages patients to take control of their situation, to do their own research, to ask questions and to generally educate themselves to the point where they are confident they need ERCP and (importantly) that the risk equation works for them. He suggests they should not rely solely on their doctor's advice. The author's experience has shown that not all doctors can be trusted (to be suitably knowledgeable and unbiased) and that not all medical imaging, and its reporting, can be trusted.

Whilst many NHS patients will receive the best of investigations, advice and treatment, others will not. This web-site is intended to help patients check for themselves whether they are doing the right thing to have ERCP. Reading, understanding and acting on what the author writes will hopefully help ensure only patients who will truly benefit from ERCP, actually subject themselves to it.

The author lists a number of considerations he feels patients should have before agreeing to ERCP. These he has learnt from his partner’s experience and that of other’s his research has identified.

The author started creating this web-site on 16/01/2016. It will remain work in progress for several months after that before it is substantially complete. The author intends to maintain the site periodically if and when he learns new information that will be helpful to patients (e-mail me if you have anything to add). The author has no idea how much use will be made of the site, but if it proves helpful (give me your feedback!), he will consider developing it further.

The author is keen for the NHS to up its game in a number of areas: to reduce the incidence of unnecessary ERCP and to reduce the incidence of death and patient harm from ERCP. To this end, he intends to add a section to help inform NHS medical staff of the lessons they should take from his partner’s avoidable death. The author also intends to add a section for endoscope manufacturers to help encourage them to use new technologies to develop the next generation of instrument. He considers present technology, which has been around over 30 years, to be past its 'use by' date; we need safer instruments and techniques!

The author's aim has been to be objective and informative throughout. However, he begs readers to understand that following the traumatic loss of his partner, some negative perceptions about our NHS may be apparent.

The author can be contacted by e-mail if any reader wishes to advise (with evidence) of where the information he provides is either wrong or misleading. Justifiable changes will then be applied.