1
|
Keating E, Leyden J, O'Connor DB, Lahiff C. Unlocking quality in endoscopic mucosal resection. World J Gastrointest Endosc 2023; 15:338-353. [PMID: 37274555 PMCID: PMC10236981 DOI: 10.4253/wjge.v15.i5.338] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/28/2022] [Revised: 02/24/2023] [Accepted: 04/12/2023] [Indexed: 05/16/2023] Open
Abstract
A review of the development of the key performance metrics of endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR), learning from the experience of the establishment of widespread colonoscopy quality measurements. Potential future performance markers for both colonoscopy and EMR are also evaluated to ensure continued high quality performance is maintained with a focus service framework and predictors of patient outcome.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Eoin Keating
- Department of Gastroenterology, Mater Misericordiae University Hospital, Dublin 7, Ireland
- School of Medicine, University College Dublin, Dublin 4, Ireland
| | - Jan Leyden
- Department of Gastroenterology, Mater Misericordiae University Hospital, Dublin 7, Ireland
- School of Medicine, University College Dublin, Dublin 4, Ireland
| | - Donal B O'Connor
- Department of Surgery, Tallaght University Hospital, Dublin 24, Ireland
- School of Medicine, Trinity College Dublin, Dublin 2, Ireland
| | - Conor Lahiff
- Department of Gastroenterology, Mater Misericordiae University Hospital, Dublin 7, Ireland
- School of Medicine, University College Dublin, Dublin 4, Ireland
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Bustamante-Balén M. How to avoid overtreatment of benign colorectal lesions: Rationale for an evidence-based management. World J Gastroenterol 2022; 28:6619-6631. [PMID: 36620344 PMCID: PMC9813935 DOI: 10.3748/wjg.v28.i47.6619] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/13/2022] [Revised: 10/10/2022] [Accepted: 11/27/2022] [Indexed: 12/19/2022] Open
Abstract
Implementing population-based screening programs for colorectal cancer has led to an increase in the detection of large but benign histological lesions. Currently, endoscopic mucosal resection can be considered the standard technique for the removal of benign lesions of the colon due to its excellent safety profile and good clinical results. However, several studies from different geographic areas agree that many benign colon lesions are still referred for surgery. Moreover, the referral rate to surgery is not decreasing over the years, despite the theoretical improvement of endoscopic resection techniques. This article will review the leading causes for benign colorectal lesions to be referred for surgery and the influence of the endoscopist experience on the referral rate. It will also describe how to categorize a polyp as complex for resection and consider an endoscopist as an expert in endoscopic resection. And finally, we will propose a framework for the accurate and evidence-based treatment of complex benign colorectal lesions.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Marco Bustamante-Balén
- Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Unit, Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Research Group, Hospital Universitari I Politècnic La Fe, Health Research Institute Hospital La Fe (IISLaFe), Valencia 46026, Spain
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Rajendran A, Pannick S, Thomas-Gibson S, Oke S, Anele C, Sevdalis N, Haycock A. Systematic literature review of learning curves for colorectal polyp resection techniques in lower gastrointestinal endoscopy. Colorectal Dis 2020; 22:1085-1100. [PMID: 31925890 DOI: 10.1111/codi.14960] [Citation(s) in RCA: 10] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/15/2019] [Accepted: 11/26/2019] [Indexed: 02/08/2023]
Abstract
AIM The performance of therapeutic procedures in lower gastrointestinal endoscopy (LGI) can be challenging and carries an increased risk of adverse events. There is increasing demand for the training of endoscopists in these procedures, but limited guidelines exist concerning procedural competency. The aim of this study was to assess the learning curves for LGI polypectomy, colorectal endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) and colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD). METHOD A systematic review of electronic databases between 1946 and September 2019 was performed. Citations were included if they reported learning curve data. Outcome measures that defined the success of procedural competency were also recorded. RESULTS A total of 34 out of 598 studies met the inclusion criteria of which 28 were related to ESD, three to polypectomy and three to EMR. Outcome measures for polypectomy competency (en bloc resection, delayed bleeding and independent polypectomy rate) were achieved after completion of between 250 and 400 polypectomies and after 300 colonoscopies. EMR outcome measures, including complete resection and recurrence, were achieved variably between 50 and 300 procedures. Outcome measures for ESD included efficiency (resection rates and procedural speed) and safety (adverse events). En bloc resection rates of over 80% and R0 resection rates of over 70% were achieved at 20-40 cases and procedural speed increased after 30 ESD cases. Competency in safety metrics was variably achieved at 20-200 cases. CONCLUSION There is a paucity of data on learning curves in LGI polypectomy, EMR and ESD. Despite limited evidence, we have identified relevant outcome measures and threshold numbers for the most common LGI polyp resection techniques for potential inclusion in training programmes/credentialing guidelines.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- A Rajendran
- The Wolfson Unit for Endoscopy, St Mark's Hospital, Harrow, UK.,Centre for Implementation Science, Health Service and Population Research Department, King's College London, London, UK.,Hillingdon Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Uxbridge, UK
| | - S Pannick
- Department of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College, London, UK
| | - S Thomas-Gibson
- The Wolfson Unit for Endoscopy, St Mark's Hospital, Harrow, UK.,Department of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College, London, UK
| | - S Oke
- Hillingdon Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Uxbridge, UK.,Department of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College, London, UK
| | - C Anele
- Department of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College, London, UK
| | - N Sevdalis
- Centre for Implementation Science, Health Service and Population Research Department, King's College London, London, UK
| | - A Haycock
- The Wolfson Unit for Endoscopy, St Mark's Hospital, Harrow, UK.,Department of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College, London, UK
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Rutter MD, Chattree A, Barbour JA, Thomas-Gibson S, Bhandari P, Saunders BP, Veitch AM, Anderson J, Rembacken BJ, Loughrey MB, Pullan R, Garrett WV, Lewis G, Dolwani S. British Society of Gastroenterology/Association of Coloproctologists of Great Britain and Ireland guidelines for the management of large non-pedunculated colorectal polyps. Gut 2015; 64:1847-73. [PMID: 26104751 PMCID: PMC4680188 DOI: 10.1136/gutjnl-2015-309576] [Citation(s) in RCA: 121] [Impact Index Per Article: 13.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/13/2015] [Revised: 05/25/2015] [Accepted: 05/29/2015] [Indexed: 02/07/2023]
Abstract
These guidelines provide an evidence-based framework for the management of patients with large non-pedunculated colorectal polyps (LNPCPs), in addition to identifying key performance indicators (KPIs) that permit the audit of quality outcomes. These are areas not previously covered by British Society of Gastroenterology (BSG) Guidelines.A National Institute of Health and Care Excellence (NICE) compliant BSG guideline development process was used throughout and the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE II) tool was used to structure the guideline development process. A systematic review of literature was conducted for English language articles up to May 2014 concerning the assessment and management of LNPCPs. Quality of evaluated studies was assessed using the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN) Methodology Checklist System. Proposed recommendation statements were evaluated by each member of the Guideline Development Group (GDG) on a scale from 1 (strongly agree) to 5 (strongly disagree) with >80% agreement required for consensus to be reached. Where consensus was not reached a modified Delphi process was used to re-evaluate and modify proposed statements until consensus was reached or the statement discarded. A round table meeting was subsequently held to finalise recommendations and to evaluate the strength of evidence discussed. The GRADE tool was used to assess the strength of evidence and strength of recommendation for finalised statements.KPIs, a training framework and potential research questions for the management of LNPCPs were also developed. It is hoped that these guidelines will improve the assessment and management of LNPCPs.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Matthew D Rutter
- Department of Gastroenterology, University Hospital of North Tees, Stockton on Tees, UK School of Medicine, Pharmacy and Health, Durham University, Stockton on Tees, UK
| | - Amit Chattree
- School of Medicine, Pharmacy and Health, Durham University, Stockton on Tees, UK
| | - Jamie A Barbour
- Department of Gastroenterology, Queen Elizabeth Hospital, Gateshead, UK
| | | | - Pradeep Bhandari
- Department of Gastroenterology, Queen Alexandra Hospital, Portsmouth, UK
| | | | - Andrew M Veitch
- Department of Gastroenterology, New Cross Hospital, Wolverhampton, UK
| | - John Anderson
- Department of Gastroenterology, Cheltenham General Hospital, Cheltenham, UK
| | | | | | - Rupert Pullan
- Department of Colorectal Surgery, Torbay Hospital, Torquay, UK
| | - William V Garrett
- Department of Colorectal Surgery, Medway Maritime Hospital, Gillingham, UK
| | - Gethin Lewis
- Department of Gastroenterology, University Hospital Llandough, Cardiff, UK
| | - Sunil Dolwani
- Department of Gastroenterology, University Hospital Llandough, Cardiff, UK
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Geraghty J, O'Toole P, Anderson J, Valori R, Sarkar S. National survey to determine current practices, training and attitudes towards advanced polypectomy in the UK. Frontline Gastroenterol 2015; 6:85-93. [PMID: 28839795 PMCID: PMC5369560 DOI: 10.1136/flgastro-2014-100516] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/15/2014] [Revised: 10/24/2014] [Accepted: 10/27/2014] [Indexed: 02/04/2023] Open
Abstract
OBJECTIVE Developments in advanced polypectomy technique provide an alternative to surgery in the management of large and complex colorectal polyps. These endoscopic techniques require expertise and can potentially incur high complication rates. This survey evaluates current UK practice, attitudes and training in advanced polypectomy. DESIGN Anonymous online questionnaire. SETTING Colonoscopists within the UK were asked about their approach to large polyps (>2 cm). RESULTS Among the 268 respondents (64% of whom were BCSP accredited), 86% were confident in removing lesions >2 cm by endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR). Of these, 27% were classed as low volume operators (<10 lesions resected/annum) and 14% as high volume operators (>50/annum). By comparison, only 3% currently performed endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD). Referring one or more benign polyps for surgery a year was common among responders of all levels (11-68%). Training deficiencies were common: only 21% of responders had received a period of training dedicated to advanced polypectomy; 58% of responders would welcome a national training scheme and a majority supported the implementation of advanced polypectomy accreditation with national guidelines. However, while 41% wanted nominated regional EMR experts, only 18% would welcome an integrated national referral network for large/complex polyps. CONCLUSIONS EMR is practised widely while ESD service provision is very limited. Most experienced colonoscopists are confident to perform piecemeal EMR, even if their training is suboptimal and annual numbers low. Practices and attitudes were variable, even among self-defined level 4 operators. Improving training and implementation of accreditation were welcomed, but there was little appetite for mandated referral to subspecialist 'experts' and national networks.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Joe Geraghty
- Department of Gastroenterology, Royal Liverpool University Hospital, Liverpool, UK,University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK
| | - Paul O'Toole
- Department of Gastroenterology, Royal Liverpool University Hospital, Liverpool, UK
| | - John Anderson
- Department of Gastroenterology, Cheltenham General Hospital, Cheltenham, UK
| | - Roland Valori
- Department of Gastroenterology, Gloucestershire Royal Hospital,Gloucester, UK
| | - Sanchoy Sarkar
- Department of Gastroenterology, Royal Liverpool University Hospital, Liverpool, UK,University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK
| |
Collapse
|