Managing underperformance in endoscopy: a pragmatic approach

Pediatric endoscopy: how can we improve patient outcomes and ensure best practices?

INTRODUCTION

Strategies to promote high-quality endoscopy in children require consensus around pediatric-specific quality standards and indicators. Using a rigorous guideline development process, the international Pediatric Endoscopy Quality Improvement Network (PEnQuIN) was developed to support continuous quality improvement efforts within and across pediatric endoscopy services.

AREAS COVERED

This review presents a framework, informed by the PEnQuIN guidelines, for assessing endoscopist competence, granting procedural privileges, audit and feedback, and for skill remediation, when required. As is critical for promoting quality, PEnQuIN indicators can be benchmarked at the individual endoscopist, endoscopy facility, and endoscopy community levels. Furthermore, efforts to incorporate technologies, including electronic medical records and artificial intelligence, into endoscopic quality improvement processes can aid in creation of large-scale networks to facilitate comparison and standardization of quality indicator reporting across sites.

EXPERT OPINION

PEnQuIN quality standards and indicators provide a framework for continuous quality improvement in pediatric endoscopy, benefiting individual endoscopists, endoscopy facilities, and the broader endoscopy community. Routine and reliable measurement of data, facilitated by technology, is required to identify and drive improvements in care. Engaging all stakeholders in endoscopy quality improvement processes is crucial to enhancing patient outcomes and establishing best practices for safe, efficient, and effective pediatric endoscopic care.

Quality in colonoscopy: time to ensure national standards are implemented?

Background

High-quality colonoscopy is crucial to ensure complete mucosal visualisation and to maximise detection of pathology. Previous audits showing variable quality have prompted national and international colonoscopy improvement programmes, including the development of quality assurance standards and key performance indicators (KPIs). The most widely used marker of mucosal visualisation is the adenoma detection rate (ADR), however, histological confirmation is required to calculate this. We explored the relationship between core colonoscopy KPIs.

Methods

Data were collected from colonoscopists in eight hospitals in North East England over a 6-month period, as part of a quality improvement study. Procedural information was collected including number of colonoscopies, caecal intubation rate (CIR), ADR and polyp detection rate (PDR). Associations between KPIs and colonoscopy performance were analysed.

Results

9265 colonoscopies performed by 118 endoscopists were included. Mean ADR and PDR per endoscopist were 16.6% (range 0-36.3, SD 7.4) and 27.2% (range 0-57.5, SD 9.3), respectively. Mean number of colonoscopies conducted in 6 months was 78.5 (range 4-334, SD 61). Mean CIR was 91.2% (range 55.5-100, SD 6.6). Total number of colonoscopies and ADR>15% were significantly associated (p=0.04). Undertaking fewer colonoscopies and using hyoscine butylbromide less frequently was significantly associated with ADR<15%. CIR, endoscopist grade, % male patients, mean patient age and CIR were not significantly related to ADR<15%. In adjusted analyses, factors which affected ADR were PDR and mean patient age.

Conclusion

Colonoscopists who perform fewer than the nationally stipulated minimum of 100 procedures per year had significantly lower ADRs. This study demonstrates that PDR can be used as a marker of ADR; providing age is also considered.

Polyps seen but not removed during index colonoscopy: an underestimated inefficiency in endoscopy practice

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

In the United Kingdom endoscopists are certified for independent practice once competent in the removal of polyps up to 20 mm in size. Where polyps are detected but not removed during the index colonoscopy, a repeat procedure is required. The aim of this study was to identify the proportion of polyps <20 mm that were not removed at the time of diagnosis.

METHODS

Polyps identified at colonoscopy during a 12-month period in a single institution were included in this study. All polyps were categorized according to the reported size and complexity per the size, morphology, site, access (SMSA) classification. In cases where polyps ≤20 mm were not removed, patient records and endoscopy reports were interrogated to ascertain the reasons for this.

RESULTS

Across 1444 patients, 2442 polyps <20 mm in size were diagnosed. Removal at the time of the index procedure occurred in 1158 patients (80.2%). Nonremoval for a predefined acceptable reason, such as concomitant anticoagulation therapy, accounted for 174 cases (12.0%). Nonremoval without contraindication was noted in 112 cases (7.8%). The mean polypectomy complexity as determined by the SMSA score of these polyps was lower than level 2, denoting low complexity. The requirement for unnecessary repeat procedures equated to 9.3 days of endoscopy capacity per year.

CONCLUSIONS

This study demonstrates that a small but significant proportion of small colorectal polyps are not removed at the time of diagnosis. This practice has implications for both patients and service provision.

Performance measures for the SACRED team-centered approach to advanced gastrointestinal endoscopy: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Quality Improvement Initiative

The European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy and United European Gastroenterology have defined performance measures for upper and lower gastrointestinal, pancreaticobiliary, and small-bowel endoscopy. Quality indicators to guide endoscopists in the growing field of advanced endoscopy are also underway. We propose that equal attention is given to developing the entire advanced endoscopy team and not the individual endoscopist alone.We suggest that the practice of teams intending to deliver high quality advanced endoscopy is underpinned by six crucial principles concerning: selection, acceptance, complications, reconnaissance, envelopment, and documentation (SACRED).

Using a dark logic model to explore adverse effects in audit and feedback: a qualitative study of gaming in colonoscopy

BACKGROUND

Audit and feedback (A&F) interventions improve patient care but may result in unintended consequences. To evaluate plausible harms and maximise benefits, theorisation using logic models can be useful. We aimed to explore the adverse effects of colonoscopy A&F using a feedback intervention theory (FIT) dark logic model before the National Endoscopy Database Automated Performance Reports to Improve Quality Outcomes Trial study.

METHODS

We undertook a qualitative study exploring A&F practices in colonoscopy. Interviews were undertaken with endoscopists from six English National Health Service endoscopy centres, purposively sampled for professional background and experience. A thematic framework analysis was performed, mapping paradoxical effects and harms using FIT and the theory of planned behaviour.

RESULTS

Data saturation was achieved on the 19th participant, with participants from nursing, surgical and medical backgrounds and a median of 7 years' experience.When performance was below aspirational targets participants were falsely reassured by social comparisons. Participants described confidence as a requirement for colonoscopy. Negative feedback without a plan to improve risked reducing confidence and impeding performance (cognitive interference). Unmet targets increased anxiety and prompted participants to question messages' motives and consider gaming.Participants described inaccurate documentation of subjective measures, including patient comfort, to achieve targets perceived as important. Participants described causing harm from persevering to complete procedures despite patient discomfort and removing insignificant polyps to improve detection rates without benefiting the patient.

CONCLUSION

Our dark logic model highlighted that A&F interventions may create both desired and adverse effects. Without a priori theorisation evaluations may disregard potential harms. In colonoscopy, improved patient experience measures may reduce harm. To address cognitive interference the motivation of feedback to support improvement should always be clear, with plans targeting specific behaviours and offering face-to-face support for confidence.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ISRCTN11126923.

Joint Advisory Group on Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (JAG) framework for managing underperformance in gastrointestinal endoscopy

Underperformance can be defined as performance which persistently falls below a desired minimum standard considered acceptable for patient care. Within gastrointestinal endoscopy, underperformance may be multifactorial, related to an individual's knowledge, skills, attitudes, health or external factors. If left unchecked, underperformance has the potential to impact on care and ultimately patient safety. Managing underperformance should be a key attribute of high-quality endoscopy service, as recognised in the Joint Advisory Group on Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (JAG) accreditation process. However, it is recognised that not all services have robust mechanisms to do this. This article provides the JAG position on managing underperformance in endoscopy, defined through a practical framework. This follows a stepwise process of detecting underperformance, verification, identification of additional causative factors, providing support and reassessment. Detection and verification of issues may require use of multiple evidence sources, including performance data, feedback and appraisal reports. Where technical underperformance is identified, this should be risk stratified by potential risk to patient safety. Support should be tailored to each individual case based on the type of underperformance detected, any causative factors with an action plan developed. Support may include coaching, mentoring, training and upskilling. Wider support from the medical director's office or external services may also be required. Monitoring and reassessment is a crucial part of the overall process.

Improving safety and reducing error in endoscopy (ISREE): a survey of UK services

BACKGROUND

The Joint Advisory Group on Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (JAG) 'Improving Safety and Reducing Error in Endoscopy' (ISREE) strategy was developed in 2018. In line with the strategy, a survey was conducted within the JAG census in 2019 to gain further insights and understanding of key safety-related areas within UK endoscopy.

METHODS

Questions were developed using the ISREE strategy as a guide and adapted by key JAG stakeholders. They were incorporated into the 2019 JAG census of UK endoscopy services. Quantitative and qualitative statistical methods were employed to analyse the results.

RESULTS

There was a 68% response rate. There was regional variability in the provision of out-of-hours GIB services (p<0.001). Across 1 month, 1535 incidents were reported across all services. There was a significantly higher proportion of reported incidents in acute services compared with others (p<0.001). Technical and training incidents were likely to be reported significantly differently to all other incident types. 74% of services have an endoscopy-specific sedation policy and 42% have a named sedation or anaesthetic lead for endoscopy. Services highlighted a desire for more anaesthetic-supported lists. Only 66% of services stated they have an effective strategy for supporting upskilling of endoscopists. Across acute services, 56% have access to human factors and endoscopic non-technical skills (ENTS) training. Patient feedback is used in several ways to improve services, develop training and promote shared learning among endoscopy users.

CONCLUSIONS

The census provides a benchmark for key safety-related characteristics of endoscopy services. These results have highlighted key areas to develop, guided by the ISREE strategy.

British society of gastroenterology Endoscopy Quality Improvement Programme (EQIP): overview and progress

High quality gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy improves patient care. Raising standards in endoscopy improves diagnostic accuracy, management of pathology and ultimately improves outcomes. Historical identification of significant variation in colonoscopy quality led to the development of the Joint Advisory Group (JAG) on GI Endoscopy, the Global Rating Scale (GRS), JAG Endoscopy Training System (JETS) training and certification. These measures led to major improvements in UK endoscopy but significant variation in practice still exists. To improve quality further the British Society of Gastroenterology Endoscopy Quality Improvement (EQIP) has been established with the aim of raising quality and reducing variation in the quality of UK endoscopy. A multifaceted approach to quality improvement (QI) will be undertaken and is described in this manuscript. Upper GI EQIP will support adoption of standards alongside regional upskilling courses. Lower GI EQIP will focus on supporting endoscopists to achieve current standards alongside approaches to reducing postcolonoscopy colorectal cancer rates. Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography EQIP will adopt a regional approach of using local data to support network-based QI. Newer areas of endoscopy practice such as small bowel endoscopy and endoscopic ultrasound will focus on identifying key performance indicators as well as standardising training and accreditation pathways. EQIP will also support QI in management of GI bleeding as well as standardising the approach to new techniques and technologies. Where evidence is lacking, approaches to gather new evidence and support the translation into clinical practice will be supported.

Performance measures for endoscopy services: A European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) quality improvement initiative

The European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) and United European Gastroenterology present a list of key performance measures for endoscopy services. We recommend that these performance measures be adopted by all endoscopy services across Europe. The measures include those related to the leadership, organization, and delivery of the service, as well as those associated with the patient journey. Each measure includes a recommendation for a minimum and target standard for endoscopy services to achieve. We recommend that all stakeholders in endoscopy take note of these ESGE endoscopy services performance measures to accelerate their adoption and implementation. Stakeholders include patients and their advocacy groups; service leaders; staff, including endoscopists; professional societies; payers; and regulators.