Hood colonoscopy in trainees: a useful adjunct to improve the performance

Variability in cecal intubation rate by calculation method: a call for standardization of key performance indicators in endoscopy

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

The cecal intubation rate (CIR) is a widely accepted key performance indicator (KPI) in colonoscopy but lacks a universal calculation method. We aimed to assess whether differences in CIR calculation methods could have an impact on perceived trainee outcomes.

METHODS

A systematic review of CIR calculation methods was conducted on major societal guidelines (United Kingdom, European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy [ESGE] and American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy [ASGE]) and trainee-inclusive studies. Trainees awarded colonoscopy certification between June 2011 and 2016 were identified from the United Kingdom e-portfolio and selected as a validation cohort. For each trainee, both the crude and unassisted CIR were calculated for 50 post-certification procedures using definitions from the 3 international guidelines. The resulting CIRs, and the proportions of endoscopists failing to meet the minimum standard of CIR ≥90%, were then compared across these definitions.

RESULTS

Across the 3 guidelines and 37 eligible studies identified, differences in CIR calculation methodology were demonstrated. These related to adjustment criteria (18 studies) and whether unassisted CIR was stipulated (18 studies). In the validation cohort of 733 trainees (36,650 procedures), the median crude CIR ranged from 96% (ESGE) to 98% (ASGE) (P < .001) and whether unassisted CIR was specified (ESGE, 94%; ASGE, 96%; P < .001). The proportion of trainees failing to achieve CIR ≥90% varied significantly across the different definitions, from 4.9% for the crude ASGE definition to 18.6% for the unassisted ESGE definition (P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

CIR calculation methods vary among guidelines and research studies; this has an impact on trainee performance measures. With CIR used as an example, this study highlights the need for standardized definitions and calculations of KPIs in endoscopy.

Training in Endoscopy

PURPOSE OF THE REVIEW

Progress towards the goal of high-quality endoscopy across health economies has been founded on high-quality structured training programmes linked to credentialing practice and ongoing performance monitoring. This review appraises the recent literature on training interventions, which may benefit performance and competency acquisition in novice endoscopy trainees.

RECENT FINDINGS

Increasing data on the learning curves for different endoscopic procedures has highlighted variations in performance amongst trainees. These differences may be dependent on the trainee, trainer and training programme. Evidence of the benefit of knowledge-based training, simulation training, hands-on courses and clinical training is available to inform the planning of ideal training pathway elements. The validation of performance assessment measures and global competency tools now also provides evidence on the effectiveness of training programmes to influence the learning curve. The impact of technological advances and intelligent metrics from national databases is also predicted to drive improvements and efficiencies in training programme design and monitoring of post-training outcomes. Training in endoscopy may be augmented through a series of pre-training and in-training interventions. In conjunction with performance metrics, these evidence-based interventions could be implemented into training pathways to optimise and quality assure training in endoscopy.

Impact of cap-assisted colonoscopy on the learning curve and quality in colonoscopy: a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Colonoscopy competency assessment in trainees traditionally has been informal. Comprehensive metrics such as the Assessment of Competency in Endoscopy (ACE) tool suggest that competency thresholds are higher than assumed. Cap-assisted colonoscopy (CAC) may improve competency, but data regarding novice trainees are lacking. We compared CAC versus standard colonoscopy (SC) performed by novice trainees in a randomized controlled trial.

METHODS

All colonoscopies performed by 3 gastroenterology fellows without prior experience were eligible for the study. Exclusion criteria included patient age <18 or >90 years, pregnancy, prior colon resection, diverticulitis, colon obstruction, severe hematochezia, referral for EMR, or a procedure done without patient sedation. Patients were randomized to either CAC or SC in a 1:1 fashion. The primary outcome was the independent cecal intubation rate (ICIR). Secondary outcomes were cecal intubation time, polyp detection rate, polyp miss rate, adenoma detection rate, ACE tool scores, and cumulative summation learning curves.

RESULTS

A total of 203 colonoscopies were analyzed, 101 in CAC and 102 in SC. CAC resulted in a significantly higher cecal intubation rate, at 79.2% in CAC compared with 66.7% in SC (P = .04). Overall cecal intubation time was significantly shorter at 13.7 minutes for CAC versus 16.5 minutes for SC (P =.02). Cecal intubation time in the case of successful independent fellow intubation was not significantly different between CAC and SC (11.6 minutes vs 12.7 minutes; P = .29). Overall ACE tool motor and cognitive scores were higher with CAC. Learning curves for ICIR approached the competency threshold earlier with cap use but reached competency for only 1 fellow. The polyp detection rate, polyp miss rate, and adenoma detection rate were not significantly different between groups.

CONCLUSIONS

CAC resulted in significant improvement in ICIR, overall ACE tool scores, and trend toward competency on learning curves when compared with SC in colonoscopy trainees without prior colonoscopy experience. (Clinical trial registration number: NCT02472730.).

Cap-Assisted Colonoscopy Increases Detection of Advanced Adenomas and Polyps

BACKGROUND

Cap-assisted colonoscopy (CAC) has been reported to increase the adenoma detection rate (ADR) in Asian population. However, CAC trials in non-Asian population have had conflicting results. Studies in North America have shown an improvement in ADRs with the use of CAC, but it mainly included white and African American patients. Given the lack of prospective studies of CAC in Hispanics, we conducted this randomized controlled trial.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This is a randomized controlled trial comparing CAC with standard colonoscopy (SC) in patients undergoing screening or surveillance colonoscopy. Our primary outcome was the ADR. Secondary outcomes were polyp detection rate, mean polyp and ADR, advanced ADR (AADR) and detection rates based on polyp morphology and location.

RESULTS

A total of 440 patients were included in the study (88.5% Hispanic). Cecal and terminal ileum intubation rates were similar in both groups (CAC: 97% and 86% versus SC: 99% and 81%, respectively). CAC did not improve ADR in comparison with SC (0.65 versus 0.52; P = 0.079); however, CAC had a higher AADR in comparison with SC (9.9% versus 4.6%; P = 0.049). CAC detected significantly more pedunculated polyps as compared with flat and sessile polyps (P = 0.011). Complication rates were similar in the CAC and SC groups (0.9% versus 0%).

CONCLUSIONS

In a predominantly Hispanic population, no difference was seen in the mean ADR with the use of CAC. However, CAC, when compared with SC, resulted in an increased AADR and mean polyp detection rate.

Achieving competence in colonoscopy: Milestones and the need for a new endoscopic curriculum in gastroenterology training

Colonoscopy is considered to be the most effective tool for reducing colorectal cancer (CRC) morbidity and mortality. As a result, certifying trainee competence in the performance of colonoscopy is critical to maximizing CRC screening and prevention efforts. Guidelines on training and accreditation around the world have been revised to emphasize the attainment of milestones in the technical and cognitive skills necessary to perform the procedure. To meet this challenge, new evaluation systems have been developed to measure trainee competence through all aspects of colonoscopy training. These changes stem from increased recognition that procedural numbers alone do not necessarily guarantee trainees’ proficiency in the performance of colonoscopy. Variability in endoscopic practice and in CRC screening outcomes also point to deficiencies in the current approach towards colonoscopy instruction. However, technological innovations hold great promise in training endoscopists to perform high quality colonoscopy. Furthermore, potential advances in the use of feedback as a training tool provide new avenues for research. This review summarizes the latest evidence on the effort to define, evaluate and promote the achievement of competence in colonoscopy among trainees.