Gastrointestinal endoscopy nurse experience and polyp detection during screening colonoscopy

Single Versus Second Observer vs Artificial Intelligence to Increase the ADENOMA Detection Rate of Colonoscopy-A Network Analysis

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Screening colonoscopy has significantly contributed to the reduction of the incidence of colorectal cancer (CRC) and its associated mortality, with adenoma detection rate (ADR) as the quality marker. To increase the ADR, various solutions have been proposed including the utilization of Artificial Intelligence (AI) and employing second observers during colonoscopies. In the interest of AI improving ADR independently, without a second observer, and the operational similarity between AI and second observer, this network meta-analysis aims at evaluating the effectiveness of AI, second observer, and a single observer in improving ADR.

METHODS

We searched the Medline, Embase, Cochrane, Web of Science Core Collection, Korean Citation Index, SciELO, Global Index Medicus, and Cochrane. A direct head-to-head comparator analysis and network meta-analysis were performed using the random-effects model. The odds ratio (OR) was calculated with a 95% confidence interval (CI) and p-value < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.

RESULTS

We analyzed 26 studies, involving 22,560 subjects. In the direct comparative analysis, AI demonstrated higher ADR (OR: 0.668, 95% CI 0.595-0.749, p < 0.001) than single observer. Dual observer demonstrated a higher ADR (OR: 0.771, 95% CI 0.688-0.865, p < 0.001) than single operator. In network meta-analysis, results were consistent on the network meta-analysis, maintaining consistency. No statistical difference was noted when comparing AI to second observer. (RR 1.1 (0.9-1.2, p = 0.3). Results were consistent when evaluating only RCTs. Net ranking provided higher score to AI followed by second observer followed by single observer.

CONCLUSION

Artificial Intelligence and second-observer colonoscopy showed superior success in Adenoma Detection Rate when compared to single-observer colonoscopy. Although not statistically significant, net ranking model favors the superiority of AI to the second observer.

Pediatric Endoscopy Quality Improvement Network Quality Standards and Indicators for Pediatric Endoscopy Facilities: A Joint NASPGHAN/ESPGHAN Guideline

INTRODUCTION

There is increasing international recognition of the impact of variability in endoscopy facilities on procedural quality and outcomes. There is also growing precedent for assessing the quality of endoscopy facilities at regional and national levels by using standardized rating scales to identify opportunities for improvement.

METHODS

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 the methodological strategy of the Appraisal of Guidelines for REsearch and Evaluation (AGREE) II instrument to develop standards and indicators relevant for assessing the quality of facilities where endoscopic care is provided to children. Consensus was reached via an iterative online Delphi process and subsequent in-person meeting. The quality of evidence and strength of recommendations were rated according to the GRADE (Grading of Recommendation Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach.

RESULTS

The PEnQuIN working group achieved consensus on 27 standards for facilities supporting pediatric endoscopy, as well 10 indicators that can be used to identify high-quality endoscopic care in children. These standards were subcategorized into three subdomains: Quality of Clinical Operations (15 standards, 5 indicators); Patient and Caregiver Experience (9 standards, 5 indicators); and Workforce (3 standards).

DISCUSSION

The rigorous PEnQuIN process successfully yielded standards and indicators that can be used to universally guide and measure high-quality facilities for procedures around the world where endoscopy is performed in children. It also underscores the current paucity of evidence for pediatric endoscopic care processes, and the need for research into this clinical area.

Gastrointestinal endoscopy nurse assistance during colonoscopy and polyp detection: A PRISMA-compliant meta-analysis of randomized control trials

BACKGROUND

Previous studies showed difference results about the effect of nurse in improvement of the colonoscopy detection rate. This meta-analysis aims to investigate whether nurse participation during colonoscopy can help in improving the detection rate of polyps and adenomas.

METHODS

Original studies in English were searched from the MEDLINE database, PubMed, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library database. Randomized control trials (RCT) comparing colonoscopy with and without nurse participation for the detection of colorectal polyps and adenomas were identified. A meta-analysis was performed using Revman 5.3 software.

RESULTS

A total of 2268 patients from 4 RCTs were included in this meta-analysis. Outcomes of colonoscopy with nurse participation were compared with those of colonoscopy without nurse participation. The results showed that nurses' participation during colonoscopy could significantly increase both, polyp detection rate and adenoma detection rate.

CONCLUSION

Nurse assistance during colonoscopy can help improve the rate of detection of polyps and adenomas.

ASGE guideline on minimum staffing requirements for the performance of GI endoscopy

Efforts to increase patient safety and satisfaction, a critical concern for health providers, require periodic evaluation of all factors involved in the provision of GI endoscopy services. We aimed to develop guidelines on minimum staffing requirements and scope of practice of available staff for the safe and efficient performance of GI endoscopy. The recommendations in this guideline were based on a systematic review of published literature, results from a nationwide survey of endoscopy directors, along with the expert guidance of the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE) Standards of Practice Committee members, ASGE Practice Operation Committee members, and the ASGE Governing Board.

Study on the influence of assistant experience on the quality of colonoscopy: A pilot single-center study

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Colonoscopy is the most important method for the diagnosis and treatment of intestinal diseases, and there are many factors affecting the quality of examination. Although the assistant is one of the factors influencing the quality of colonoscopy, there are few studies on the effect of different assistants with different experiences on the quality of colonoscopy. Therefore, the study was aimed to research the correlation between different assistants with different experiences and the quality of water-injection colonoscopy.

METHOD

In this study, a single-center randomized controlled trial was conducted to analyze the key quality indicators (the rate to arrive cecum, time to arrive cecum, total operation time, detection rate of polyps, detection rate of adenoma, pain score, operation satisfaction, and the pressure on abdomen) of patients who underwent water-injection colonoscopy under non-sedation from January 2018 to June 2018 in the center. Patients were randomly assigned to different assistant groups based on the actual working period of 6 months (0∼6 months inexperienced assistant group and assistant group with more than 6 months of experience). Through fitting the bivariate and multivariate logistic regression models, the differences between the two groups and the effects on the key quality indicators of colon examination were analyzed.

RESULTS

A total of 331 patients who were eligible for non-sedation colonoscopy were randomly assigned to the experienced assistant group (n = 179) and the inexperienced assistant group (n = 152). Among them, 103 cases of polyp and 70 cases of adenoma were detected. The rate to arrive cecum, polyp detection rate and adenoma detection rate were compared between the two groups during operation (P > 0.05). However, there were significant differences in the time to arrive cecum, patients' satisfaction with operation, pain score and abdominal pressure (P < .05). In the inexperienced assistant group, 20% of the operation time was one standard deviation higher than the mean value, while the experienced assistant group was 12% (339 s vs 405s, OR 0.541, 95% 0.295-0.990). Compared with the inexperienced assistant group, patients in the experienced assistant group had higher operational satisfaction (98.32% vs 92.11%, OR 0.199, 95% 0.055-0.718) and lower pain score (0.3 vs 0.49, OR 1.993, 95% 1.52-3.775). All relations remained unchanged after adjusting for potential confounders.

CONCLUSION

The assistant is a key factor in the quality of colonoscopy, especially in the case of non-sedating colonoscopy. The experience of the assistant is related to the time to arrive cecum, the degree of pain and the overall satisfaction of patient with the operation. The assistant should be subject to the quality supervision of the endoscopic inspector. Proof of human Clinical Trial Registration: The institutional review board of Fifth Affiliated Hospital of Wenzhou Medical College, Zhejiang Province, China approved the study. The study is registered on. Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (ChiCTR1800015650).

Impact of fellowship training level on colonoscopy quality and efficiency metrics

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Previous studies have described variable effects of fellow involvement on the adenoma detection rate (ADR), but few have stratified this effect by level of training. We aimed to evaluate the "fellow effect" on multiple procedural metrics including a newly defined adenoma management efficiency index, which may have a role in documenting colonoscopy proficiency for trainees. We also describe the impact of level of training on moderate sedation use.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective review of 2024 patients (mean age, 60.9 ± 10 years; 94% men) who underwent outpatient colonoscopy between June 2012 and December 2014 at our Veterans Affairs Medical Center. Colonoscopies were divided into 5 groups. The first 2 groups were first-year fellows in the first 6 months and last 6 months of the training year. Second- and third-year fellows and attending-only procedures accounted for 1 group each. We collected data on doses of sedatives used, frequency of adjunctive agent use, procedural times, and location, size, and histology of polyps. We defined the adenoma management efficiency index as average time required per adenoma resected during withdrawal.

RESULTS

Of the colonoscopies performed, 1675 involved a fellow and 349 were performed by the attending alone. There was no difference in ADR between fellows according to level of training (P = .8) or between fellows compared with attending-only procedures (P = .67). Procedural times decreased consistently during training and declined further for attending-only procedures. This translated into improvement in the adenoma management efficiency index (fellow groups by ascending level of training: 23.5 minutes vs 18.3 minutes vs 13.7 minutes vs 13.4 minutes vs attending group 11.7 minutes; P < .001). There was no difference in the average doses of midazolam and fentanyl used among fellow groups (P = .16 and P = .1, respectively). Compared with attending-only procedures, fellow involvement was associated with higher doses of fentanyl and midazolam and more frequent use of diphenhydramine and glucagon (P < .0001, P = .0002, P < .0001, and P = .01, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

ADR was similar at different stages of fellowship training and comparable with the attending group. Efficiency of detecting and resecting polyps improved throughout training without reaching the attending level. Fellow involvement led to a greater use of moderate sedation, which may relate to a longer procedure duration and an evolving experience in endoscopic technique.

Differences with experienced nurse assistance during colonoscopy in detecting polyp and adenoma: a randomized clinical trial

OBJECTIVES

This study aims to evaluate whether the participation of an experienced endoscopy nurse in colonoscopy increases the polyp detection rate (PDR) and adenoma detection rate (ADR) of experienced colonoscopists.

METHODS

This study was a randomized controlled trial. Patients were randomly assigned to the experienced colonoscopist alone (single observer) group, or experienced nurse participation (dual observer) group. The primary outcome was the PDR and ADR. The advanced lesion detection rate was also recorded.

RESULTS

A total of 587 patients were included in the analysis. Among these patients, 291 patients were assigned to the single observer group, while 296 patients were assigned to the dual observer group. The PDR was 33% in the single observer group and 41.9% in the dual observer group (P = 0.026), while the ADR was 23.0% in the single observer group and 30.4% in the dual observer group (P = 0.043). No significant difference was found for advanced lesions between groups.

CONCLUSIONS

The present data demonstrated that experienced nurse observation during colonoscopy can improve polyp and adenoma detection rates, even if the colonoscopist is experienced.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Clinicaltrials.gov No. NCT02292563. https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/results?cond=&term=NCT02292563&cntry=&state=&city=&dist=.

Association of trainee participation with adenoma and polyp detection rates

AIM

To investigate whether adenoma and polyp detection rates (ADR and PDR, respectively) in screening colonoscopies performed in the presence of fellows differ from those performed by attending physicians alone.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective review of all patients who underwent a screening colonoscopy at Grady Memorial Hospital between July 1, 2009 and June 30, 2015. Patients with a history of colon polyps or cancer and those with poor colon preparation or failed cecal intubation were excluded from the analysis. Associations of fellowship training level with the ADR and PDR relative to attendings alone were assessed using unconditional multivariable logistic regression. Models were adjusted for sex, age, race, and colon preparation quality.

RESULTS

A total of 7503 colonoscopies met the inclusion criteria and were included in the analysis. The mean age of the study patients was 58.2 years; 63.1% were women and 88.2% were African American. The ADR was higher in the fellow participation group overall compared to that in the attending group: 34.5% vs 30.7% (P = 0.001), and for third year fellows it was 35.4% vs 30.7% (aOR = 1.23, 95%CI: 1.09-1.39). The higher ADR in the fellow participation group was evident for both the right and left side of the colon. For the PDR the corresponding figures were 44.5% vs 40.1% (P = 0.0003) and 45.7% vs 40.1% (aOR = 1.25, 95%CI: 1.12-1.41). The ADR and PDR increased with increasing fellow training level (P for trend < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

There is a stepwise increase in ADR and PDR across the years of gastroenterology training. Fellow participation is associated with higher adenoma and polyp detection.

The Colonoscopist's Expertise Affects the Characteristics of Detected Polyps

Background/Aims:

The influence of the endoscopist on the polyp detection rate (PDR) is underappreciated in clinical practice. Moreover, flat lesions or lesions of the proximal colon are more difficult to detect. Here, we evaluated the differences in the PDR and the characteristics of detected polyps according to the experience of the colonoscopist.

Methods:

We collected data on 2,549 patients who underwent screening colonoscopy performed by three fellows. The PDR was calculated according to the percentage of patients who had at least one polyp (method A) and according to the percentage of detected lesions (method B). The primary outcome included the change in the PDR, and the secondary outcome included the change in the characteristics of the detected polyps with increasing experience of the colonoscopist.

Results:

No proportional correlation was found between the PDR and increasing experience in colonoscopy with method A; however, with method B, the PDR increased after 400 colonoscopies (p=0.0209). With method B, the detection rates of small polyps (<5 mm) (p=0.0015) and polyps in proximal sites (p=0.0050) increased after 300 colonoscopies.

Conclusions:

Our study demonstrated that the quality of a colonoscopy, measured by using the PDR, may increase when performed by experienced fellows.

Nurse Participation in Colonoscopy Observation versus the Colonoscopist Alone for Polyp and Adenoma Detection: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized, Controlled Trials

The role of nurse participation (NP) in colonoscopy observation for polyp and adenoma detection is unclear. This study aimed to evaluate whether nurse participation can improve polyp and adenoma detection. Patients and Methods. The PUBMED, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library databases were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published in English. The outcome measurements included (1) the polyp and adenoma detection rate (PDR and ADR); (2) the advanced lesions detection rate; and (3) the mean polyp and adenoma detection rate per colonoscopy. Results. Three RCTs with a total of 1676 patients were included. The pooled data showed a significantly higher ADR in the NP group than colonoscopist alone (CA) (45.7% versus 39.3%; RR 1.16; 95% CI, 1.04–1.30). And it showed no significant difference in the PDR and advanced lesions detection rate between the two groups (RR: 1.14, 95% CI: 0.95–1.37; RR: 1.35, 95% CI: 0.91–2.00; resp.). Conclusions. Nurse participation during a colonoscopy can improve the ADR, whereas no benefit for the PDR and advanced lesions detection rate was observed. All RCTs included in the meta-analysis had high risk of bias. Thus, there is a need for new research that uses sound methodology to definitively address the research question under study.

Adenoma detection rates decline with increasing procedural hours in an endoscopist's workload

BACKGROUND

Operator fatigue may negatively influence adenoma detection (AD) during screening colonoscopy.

OBJECTIVE

To better characterize factors affecting AD, including the number of hours worked, and the number and type of procedures performed before an index screening colonoscopy.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort study was conducted involving individuals undergoing a screening colonoscopy at a major tertiary care hospital in Montreal, Quebec. Individuals were identified using an endoscopic reporting database; AD was identified by an electronic chart review. A hierarchical logistic regression analysis was performed to determine the association between patient- and endoscopist-related variables and AD.

RESULTS

A total of 430 consecutive colonoscopies performed by 10 gastroenterologists and two surgeons were included. Patient mean (± SD) age was 63.4±10.9 years, 56.3% were males, 27.7% had undergone a previous colonoscopy and the cecal intubation rate was 95.7%. The overall AD rate was 25.7%. Age was associated with AD (OR 1.06 [95% CI 1.03 to 1.08]), while female sex (OR 0.44 [95% CI 0.25 to 0.75]), an indication for average-risk screening (OR 0.47 [95% CI 0.27 to 0.80]) and an increase in the number of hours during which endoscopies were performed before the index colonoscopy (OR 0.87 [95% CI 0.76 to 0.99]) were associated with lower AD rates. On exploratory univariable analysis, a threshold of 3 h of endoscopy time performed before the index colonoscopy was associated with decreased AD.

CONCLUSION

The number of hours devoted to endoscopies before the index colonoscopy was inversely associated with AD rate, with decreased performance possibly as early as within 3 h. This metric should be confirmed in future studies and considered when optimizing scheduling practices.

A survey of the practice of after-hours and emergency endoscopy in Canada

OBJECTIVE

To determine staffing and practice patterns for after-hours endoscopy service in Canada.

METHODS

A link to a web-based survey was sent by e-mail to all clinical members of the Canadian Association of Gastroenterology in February 2011. A priori, it was planned to compare variations in practice among gastroenterologists (GIs) performing endoscopy in different regions of Canada, between pediatric and adult GIs, and between university and community hospitals.

RESULTS

Of 422 potential respondents, 168 (40%) responded. Of the 139 adult GIs, 61% performed after-hours endoscopy in the endoscopy suite where daytime procedures were performed, 62% had a trained endoscopy nurse available for all procedures, 38% had access to propofol sedation, 12% reprocessed the endoscopes themselves or with the help of a resident, 4% had out-of-hospital patients come directly to their endoscopy suite and 53% were highly satisfied. The adult endoscopists practising at community hospitals were more likely to have an anesthetist attend the procedure. Regional differences were noted, with more involvement of anesthetists (13%) and availability of propofol (50%) in Ontario, more frequent reprocessing of endoscopes in the central reprocessing units in British Columbia (78%) and almost universal availability of a trained endoscopy nurse (96%) with concomitant higher endoscopist satisfaction (84% highly satisfied) in Alberta.

CONCLUSIONS

More than one-third of surveyed endoscopists across the country do not have a trained endoscopy nurse to assist in after-hours endoscopy - the time period when urgent patients often present and typically require therapeutic endoscopic interventions. There are significant regional differences in the practice of after-hours endoscopy in Canada.

Endoscopy Nurse Participation May Increase the Polyp Detection Rate by Second-Year Fellows during Screening Colonoscopies

Background/Aims

The aim of this study was to assess the effects of endoscopy nurse participation on polyp detection rate (PDR) and adenoma detection rate (ADR) of second-year fellows during screening colonoscopies.

Methods

This was a single-center, prospective, randomized study comparing a fellow alone and a fellow plus an endoscopy nurse as an additional observer during afternoon outpatient screening colonoscopies. The primary end points were PDR and ADR.

Results

One hundred ninety-one colonoscopies performed by a fellow alone and 192 colonoscopies performed by a fellow plus an endoscopy nurse were analyzed. The PDR was significantly higher when the nurse was involved (53.1% vs. 41.3%, p<0.05); however, there was no significant difference in the ADR between the two groups (38.5% vs. 29.8%, p=0.073). There was no difference in the percentage of patients with ≥2 polyps, advanced adenomas, polyp size, polyp location, and polyp shapes between the two groups. There was no difference in the PDR according to the level of experience of the endoscopy nurse.

Conclusions

Endoscopy nurse participation as an additional observer during screening colonoscopy performed by second-year fellow increases the PDR; however, the level of experience of the nurse was not an important factor.

Canadian Association of Gastroenterology consensus guidelines on safety and quality indicators in endoscopy

BACKGROUND

Increasing use of gastrointestinal endoscopy, particularly for colorectal cancer screening, and increasing emphasis on health care quality, highlight the need for clearly defined, evidence-based processes to support quality improvement in endoscopy.

OBJECTIVE

To identify processes and indicators of quality and safety relevant to high-quality endoscopy service delivery.

METHODS

A multidisciplinary group of 35 voting participants developed recommendation statements and performance indicators. Systematic literature searches generated 50 initial statements that were revised iteratively following a modified Delphi approach using a web-based evaluation and voting tool. Statement development and evidence evaluation followed the AGREE (Appraisal of Guidelines, REsearch and Evaluation) and GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) guidelines. At the consensus conference, participants voted anonymously on all statements using a 6-point scale. Subsequent web-based voting evaluated recommendations for specific, individual quality indicators, safety indicators and mandatory endoscopy reporting fields. Consensus was defined a priori as agreement by 80% of participants.

RESULTS

Consensus was reached on 23 recommendation statements addressing the following: ethics (statement 1: agreement 100%), facility standards and policies (statements 2 to 9: 90% to 100%), quality assurance (statements 10 to 13: 94% to 100%), training, education, competency and privileges (statements 14 to 19: 97% to 100%), endoscopy reporting standards (statements 20 and 21: 97% to 100%) and patient perceptions (statements 22 and 23: 100%). Additionally, 18 quality indicators (agreement 83% to 100%), 20 safety indicators (agreement 77% to 100%) and 23 recommended endoscopy-reporting elements (agreement 91% to 100%) were identified.

DISCUSSION

The consensus process identified a clear need for high-quality clinical and outcomes research to support quality improvement in the delivery of endoscopy services.

CONCLUSIONS

The guidelines support quality improvement in endoscopy by providing explicit recommendations on systematic monitoring, assessment and modification of endoscopy service delivery to yield benefits for all patients affected by the practice of gastrointestinal endoscopy.

Participation by experienced endoscopy nurses increases the detection rate of colon polyps during a screening colonoscopy: a multicenter, prospective, randomized study

BACKGROUND

No reported prospective, randomized study has evaluated the impact of an endoscopy nurse participating as a second observer during colonoscopy.

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether the participation of an endoscopy nurse enhanced the polyp detection rate (PDR) and adenoma detection rate (ADR) during screening colonoscopy.

DESIGN

Multicenter, prospective, randomized study.

SETTING

Academic hospitals.

PATIENTS

A total of 844 consecutive patients undergoing screening colonoscopy.

INTERVENTIONS

Single observation by colonoscopist or dual observation by colonoscopist and endoscopy nurse during colonoscope withdrawal.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS

PDR and ADR.

RESULTS

No significant difference in patient demographic data, adequacy of bowel preparation, or mean withdrawal time was observed between the 2 groups. In total, 1153 polyps, including 762 adenomas, were detected in 791 patients. Seven nonpolypoid, depressed neoplastic lesions (0-IIc or combined types) were only detected in the dual observation group. A multivariate analysis revealed that experienced (≥ 2 years) endoscopy nurse participation significantly increased the PDR and ADR compared with those in the single observation group by a colonoscopist alone (adjusted odds ratio [OR] 1.58 [95% CI, 1.07-2.32]; adjusted OR 1.47 [95% CI, 1.01-2.12], respectively). Additionally, the PDR was significantly higher in the dual-observation group with fellows (<500 colonoscopies) and an experienced endoscopy nurse versus that in the single observation group (adjusted OR 2.07 [95% CI, 1.15-3.74]). There was no significant benefit of experienced nurse participation in the subgroup with experienced colonoscopists.

LIMITATIONS

Absence of colonoscopist blinding.

CONCLUSIONS

Experienced endoscopy nurse participation increased the PDR and ADR during screening colonoscopy. However, the benefit of participation by experienced nurses appears to be exclusively with inexperienced colonoscopists.

Current nursing models in endoscopy centers

Endoscopic examination and therapy as a special clinical approach can currently be performed in many large general hospitals. With the rapid development and wide utilization of endoscopic techniques in clinical practice, relevant nursing techniques and skills are becoming more complicated. In this article, we discuss the nursing models in endoscopy centers. It seems to be important to adopt centralized and integrated management system in endoscopy centers to protect the rights and interests of patients and guarantee their health and safety.

Level of fellowship training increases adenoma detection rates

BACKGROUND & AIMS

The adenoma detection rate (ADR) is critical to the success of colonoscopy for colorectal cancer screening. The effects of involving gastroenterology fellows in screening colonoscopies are uncertain. We assessed the effects of gastroenterology fellow participation on ADR and whether outcomes vary with year of fellowship training.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective review of all average-risk screening colonoscopies performed from April 2005-April 2007 at the University of Colorado Hospital. A gastroenterology attending physician alone performed 2895 colonoscopies; 699 were performed by a gastroenterology fellow supervised by an attending physician. Statistical analyses of polyp, adenoma, and advanced adenoma (or cancer) detection were performed by using logistic regression.

RESULTS

The ADR was significantly higher (odds ratio [OR], 1.32; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.10-1.59) among colonoscopies that included a gastroenterology fellow compared with those performed by only a gastroenterology attending physician. Similarly, the polyp detection rate was higher (OR, 1.28; 95% CI, 1.08-1.52) among colonoscopies involving a gastroenterology fellow. There was no difference in the detection of advanced adenomas or cancers (OR, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.77-1.44) among colonoscopies involving a gastroenterology fellow. The ADR differed greatly by year of training. Compared with colonoscopies performed by an attending gastroenterologist alone, the ADR increased with each year of training: OR, 0.89 (95% CI, 0.66-1.22) for first-year fellows; OR, 1.31 (95% CI, 0.89-1.93) for second-year fellows; and OR, 1.70 (95% CI, 1.33-2.17) for third-year fellows.

CONCLUSIONS

Involvement of fellows in screening colonoscopies increases the ADR, primarily because of the increased ADR in procedures involving third-year gastroenterology fellows.

Fewer polyps detected by colonoscopy as the day progresses at a Veteran's Administration teaching hospital

BACKGROUND & AIMS

One objective of colonoscopy is to identify and remove polyps-this process requires attention to detail and prolonged concentration. Providers are predisposed to cognitive errors because the procedure is often performed repetitively throughout the day. We measured the adjusted relationship between colonoscopy start time and polyp yield.

METHODS

We performed a prospective study of 477 patients that received screening, surveillance, or diagnostic colonoscopies at a Veteran's Administration (VA) teaching hospital. The primary outcome measure was polyp yield. We collected data on colonoscopy start times, which were analyzed both as a dichotomous time period ("early-morning case" vs "later case") and as a continuous variable (start time). We identified significant risk factors using univariate analysis and performed Poisson multivariable regression to measure the independent effect of colonoscopy start time on polyp yield. We evaluated evidence of decreasing polyp yield as the day progressed throughout pre-specified time intervals.

RESULTS

In univariate analysis, early-morning cases yielded 27% more polyps per patient than later cases (95% confidence interval, 11%-45%; P < .001). The total numbers of, hyperplastic and adenomatous polyps found decreased hour-by-hour as the day progressed. Multivariable analysis demonstrated that early-morning cases yielded 20% more polyps per patient than later cases (95% confidence interval, 5%-38%; P = .007).

CONCLUSIONS

At a VA medical center, more polyps were detected in patients that received colonoscopies early in the morning compared with later in the day. Moreover, adenoma detection reduced as the day progressed. Providers might be most adept at detecting polyps at the beginning of the day; further validation in other practice settings is required.