Risk management regarding sedation/analgesia

Training in basic gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures: a European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) and European Society of Gastroenterology and Endoscopy Nurses and Associates (ESGENA) Position Statement

This ESGE Position Statement provides structured and evidence-based guidance on the essential requirements and processes involved in training in basic gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopic procedures. The document outlines definitions; competencies required, and means to their assessment and maintenance; the structure and requirements of training programs; patient safety and medicolegal issues. 1:  ESGE and ESGENA define basic endoscopic procedures as those procedures that are commonly indicated, generally accessible, and expected to be mastered (technically and cognitively) by the end of any core training program in gastrointestinal endoscopy. 2:  ESGE and ESGENA consider the following as basic endoscopic procedures: diagnostic upper and lower GI endoscopy, as well as a limited range of interventions such as: tissue acquisition via cold biopsy forceps, polypectomy for lesions ≤ 10 mm, hemostasis techniques, enteral feeding tube placement, foreign body retrieval, dilation of simple esophageal strictures, and India ink tattooing of lesion location. 3:  ESGE and ESGENA recommend that training in GI endoscopy should be subject to stringent formal requirements that ensure all ESGE key performance indicators (KPIs) are met. 4:  Training in basic endoscopic procedures is a complex process and includes the development and acquisition of cognitive, technical/motor, and integrative skills. Therefore, ESGE and ESGENA recommend the use of validated tools to track the development of skills and assess competence. 5:  ESGE and ESGENA recommend incorporating a multimodal approach to evaluating competence in basic GI endoscopic procedures, including procedural thresholds and the measurement and documentation of established ESGE KPIs. 7:  ESGE and ESGENA recommend the continuous monitoring of ESGE KPIs during GI endoscopy training to ensure the trainee's maintenance of competence. 9:  ESGE and ESGENA recommend that GI endoscopy training units fulfil the ESGE KPIs for endoscopy units and, furthermore, be capable of providing the dedicated personnel, infrastructure, and sufficient case volume required for successful training within a structured training program. 10:  ESGE and ESGENA recommend that trainers in basic GI endoscopic procedures should be endoscopists with formal educational training in the teaching of endoscopy, which allows them to successfully and safely teach trainees.

Endoscopic Sedation: Medicolegal Considerations

Goals of endoscopic sedation are to provide patients with a successful procedure, and ensure that they remain safe and are relieved from anxiety and discomfort; agents should provide efficient, appropriate sedation and allow patients to recover rapidly. Sedation is usually safe and effective; however, complications may ensue. This paper outlines some medicolegal aspects of endoscopic sedation, including informed consent, possible withdrawal of consent during the procedure, standard of care for monitoring sedation, use of anesthesia personnel to deliver sedation, and new agents and devices.

Training and Competency in Sedation Practice in Gastrointestinal Endoscopy

The practice of endoscopic sedation requires a thorough understanding of preprocedural assessment, sedation pharmacology, intraprocedure monitoring, adverse event management, and postprocedural care. The training process has become increasingly standardized and entails knowledge and practice-based components. The use of propofol in particular requires a higher level of structured training owing to its narrow therapeutic window. Simulation has increased opportunities for practice-based training in a controlled environment. After completion of training, the endoscopist must demonstrate competence in theoretical understanding and technical ability to administer sedation. Although individual institutions have certification processes, there is a lack of validated, standardized methods to confirm competence.

Intralesional steroid injection therapy in the management of resistant gastrointestinal strictures

Esophageal strictures are a problem frequently encountered by gastroenterologists. Dilation has been the customary treatment for benign esophageal strictures, and dilation techniques have advanced over the years. Depending on their characteristics and the response to treatment, esophageal strictures can be classified into two types: 1, simple (Schatzki rings, webs, peptic injury, and following sclerotherapy) - these are easily amenable to dilation, with a low recurrence rate after initial treatment; and 2, complex (caused by caustic ingestion, radiation injury, anastomotic strictures, and photodynamic therapy) - these are difficult to dilate and are associated with higher recurrence rates. Refractory strictures are those in which it is not possible to relieve the anatomic restriction successfully up to a diameter of 14 mm over five sessions at 2-weekly intervals, due to cicatricial luminal compromise or fibrosis; and recurrent strictures are those in which it is not possible to maintain a satisfactory luminal diameter for 4 wk once the target diameter of 14 mm has been achieved. There are no standard recommendations for the management of refractory strictures. The various techniques used include intralesional steroid injection combined with dilation; endoscopic incisional therapy, with or without dilation; placement of self-expanding metal stents, Polyflex stents, or biodegradable stents; self-bougienage; and endoscopic surgery. This review discusses the indications, technique, results, and complications of the use of intralesional steroid injections combined with dilation and endoscopic incisional therapy with dilation in refractory strictures.

Most doctors win: what to do if sued for medical malpractice

All gastroenterologists are at risk of being accused of medical malpractice; few have received much training about what to do should a lawsuit occur. This article details what one can expect in a typical medical malpractice negligence claim and reviews basic relevant legal terminology. The timeline of a lawsuit is described, particularly noting the physician's role in discovery and trial. Cautions and suggestions for successful navigation of this unfamiliar and uncomfortable world are dispensed.

Endoscopic sedation: medicolegal considerations

The availability of endoscopy as a diagnostic and therapeutic tool has caused the number of procedures performed in the United States to greatly increase; additionally, the volume and complexity of endoscopic procedures performed under sedation, including difficult procedures performed on frail and severely ill patients, has increased. The goals of endoscopic sedation are to provide patients with a successful procedure and to ensure that they remain safe and are relieved from anxiety and discomfort; agents should provide efficient, appropriate sedation and allow patients to recover rapidly. Sedation is usually both safe and effective; however, complications may ensue. This article will explore medicolegal aspects of sedation, such as the importance of informed consent for sedation, the difficulties of assessing withdrawal of consent in a sedated patient, and the need for sedation monitoring which meets accepted standard of care. Controversies involving GI directed propofol and the use of anesthesia personnel to deliver sedation for endoscopy are also discussed.

Endoscopic sedation: equipment and personnel

Endoscopic sedation is changing, in response to economic pressures, regulatory requirements, and new technology. Each endoscopy unit must tailor its personnel and equipment practices to its particular case mix, sedation preferences, and to its external environment. This article discusses sedation-related considerations regarding procedure room design, equipment for drug administration, equipment for patient monitoring, equipment for managing emergencies, and staff selection, training, and responsibilities.

Medical malpractice litigation related to gastrointestinal endoscopy in Japan: A two-decade review of civil court cases

AIM: To examine the allegations in malpractice litigations related to gastrointestinal endoscopy in Japan.

METHODS: A retrospective review of cases tried in the civil court system during the 21-year period from 1985 to 2005, identified in a computerized legal database, was undertaken.

RESULTS: Eighteen malpractice litigations and a total of 30 allegations were identified. Of the 18 (44%) malpractice litigations, 8 (44%) were related to eso-phagogastroduodenoscopy, 4 (22%) to colonoscopy, 4 (22%) to endoscopic sphincterotomy, and 2 (11%) to endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography. Seventeen (94%) cases pertained to complications, and the remaining (6%) case pertained to misdiagnosis. In 10 cases, the patient died of the complications. Allegations were categorized as: (1) performance error during the endoscopic procedure (n = 12, 40%); (2) lack of informed consent (n = 9, 30%); (3) performance error during the treatment after the endoscopic procedure (n = 4, 13%); (4) premedication error (n = 3, 10%); (5) diagnostic error (n = 1, 3%); and (6) indication error for the endoscopic procedure (n = 1, 3%).

CONCLUSION: These data may aid in the design of risk prevention strategies to be used by gastrointestinal endoscopists.