The "golden retriever" study: improving polyp retrieval rates by providing education and competitive feedback

A novel polyp retrieval bag reduces the polyp fragmentation rate in colon polypectomy: a single-blind randomized controlled study

PURPOSE

The fragmentation of polyps affects complete resection confirmation. The primary aim of this study was to assess the feasibility of a novel polyp retrieval bag for reducing the fragmentation rate of colon polyps.

METHODS

Patients with a 5-15 mm colon polyp were recruited and randomized into two groups at a 1:1 ratio. After polyp resection, polyps obtained from patients in the treatment group were extracted via a novel polyp retrieval bag without traversing the instrument channel, whereas polyps obtained from patients in the control group were collected through the instrument channel, attaching the polyp trap to the instrument channel port, and applying suction.

RESULTS

From January to July 2022, 225 patients were assessed for eligibility. The study participants included 204 patients, and seven patients whose samples were not retrieved were excluded. Polyp fragmentation was significantly lower in the treatment group than in the control group (3.0% [3/100] vs. 17.5% [17/97], P = 0.001). The retrieval failure rates in the treatment group and control group were not significantly different (2.0% [2/102] vs. 4.9% [5/102], P = 0.442). There were fewer colonoscope insertions in the treatment group than in the control group (102 vs. 110), but a significant difference was not present (P = 0.065). No significant adverse events were observed during the follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

This study demonstrated that the polyp retrieval bag was safe and feasible for reducing the fragmentation rate of retrieved polyps.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

The study was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT05189912, 1/12/2021).

Improving bone marrow biopsy quality through peer discussion and data comparisons: A single institution experience

INTRODUCTION

Bone marrow biopsy (BMB) is crucial for the diagnosis, staging, and monitoring of a variety of hematologic diseases. Obtaining an adequate BMB can be challenging given the need to balance patient comfort with acquisition of high quality specimens. We had observed variable BMB quality at our institution with poor quality specimens sometimes affecting diagnosis. We thus undertook this quality improvement (QI) project to improve the quality of diagnostic BMB specimens.

METHODS

We used an A3 QI process to identify factors possibly influencing BMB quality. We collected baseline data on 211 BMB, with short and long-term follow-up data on a further 382 cases. We used clinical conferences to discuss data, perform peer comparisons and identify strategies to create a sustainable improvement in BMB quality.

RESULTS

Baseline data showed that BMB length was influenced most by the individual performer, with some influence of needle gauge. Other factors such as sedation, BMB indication were noncontributory. BMB lengths improved following performer education and individual performer data comparisons (15.2 mm post vs 12.8 mm baseline, P < .0001) and with use of an 8- rather than 11-gauge needle (18.3 mm 8-gauge vs 13.3 mm 11-gauge P < .0001), and were sustained over the long term.

CONCLUSIONS

Education on BMB standards, sharing of performer data, and changing needle gauge are relatively straightforward methods to improve BMB quality, leading to easier pathology diagnosis.

Performance measures for lower gastrointestinal endoscopy: a European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) quality improvement initiative

The European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy and United European Gastroenterology present a short list of key performance measures for lower gastrointestinal endoscopy. We recommend that endoscopy services across Europe adopt the following seven key performance measures for lower gastrointestinal endoscopy for measurement and evaluation in daily practice at a center and endoscopist level: 1 rate of adequate bowel preparation (minimum standard 90%); 2 cecal intubation rate (minimum standard 90%); 3 adenoma detection rate (minimum standard 25%); 4 appropriate polypectomy technique (minimum standard 80%); 5 complication rate (minimum standard not set); 6 patient experience (minimum standard not set); 7 appropriate post-polypectomy surveillance recommendations (minimum standard not set). Other identified performance measures have been listed as less relevant based on an assessment of their importance, scientific acceptability, feasibility, usability, and comparison to competing measures.