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

Patient safety incidents in endoscopy: a human factors analysis of nonprocedural significant harm incidents from the National Reporting and Learning System (NRLS)

BACKGROUND

Despite advances in understanding and reducing the risk of endoscopic procedures, there is little consideration of the safety of the wider endoscopy service. Patient safety incidents (PSIs) still occur. We sought to identify nonprocedural PSIs (nPSIs) and their causative factors from a human factors perspective and generate ideas for safety improvement.

METHODS

Endoscopy-specific PSI reports were extracted from the National Reporting and Learning System (NRLS). A retrospective, cross-sectional human factors analysis of data was performed. Two independent researchers coded data using a hybrid thematic analysis approach. The Human Factors Analysis and Classification System (HFACS) was used to code contributory factors. Analysis informed creation of driver diagrams and key recommendations for safety improvement in endoscopy.

RESULTS

From 2017 to 2019, 1181 endoscopy-specific PSIs of significant harm were reported across England and Wales, with 539 (45.6%) being nPSIs. Five categories accounted for over 80% of all incidents, with "follow-up and surveillance" being the largest (23.4% of all nPSIs). From the free-text incident reports, 487 human factors codes were identified. Decision-based errors were the most common act prior to PSI occurrence. Other frequent preconditions to incidents were focused on environmental factors, particularly overwhelmed resources, patient factors, and ineffective team communication. Lack of staffing, standard operating procedures, effective systems, and clinical pathways were also contributory. Seven key recommendations for improving safety have been made in response to our findings.

CONCLUSIONS

This was the first national-level human factors analysis of endoscopy-specific PSIs. This work will inform safety improvement strategies and should empower individual services to review their approach to safety.

UK-wide survey of gastroenterology and hepatology trainees in 2022: endoscopy, workforce planning and the Shape of things to come

Objective

Shape of Training has shortened the gastroenterology curriculum in the UK from a 5 to 4-year programme. There are ongoing concerns that this will negatively impact training and the attainment of competencies expected at consultant level. We undertook a UK-wide survey of gastroenterology trainees to establish their views.

Method

The British Society of Gastroenterology Trainees Section collected anonymised survey responses from trainees between June and September 2022 via an online platform.

Results

40.3% of trainees responded. Strikingly, only 10% of respondents felt they could achieve certificate of completion of training (CCT) within a 4-year programme. Furthermore, 31% were not confident they would attain the required expertise in their subspecialist interest during training. 70.8% reported spending a quarter or more of their training in general internal medicine (GIM) and 71.6% felt this negatively impacted on their gastroenterology training. Only 21.6% of respondents plan to pursue a consultant post with GIM commitments.Regarding endoscopy, only 36.1% of ST7s had provisional and 22.2% full accreditation in colonoscopy. Although 92.3% of respondents wanted exposure to a 'bleed rota', this was the case for only 16.2%. Teaching quality was judged to be insufficient by 45.9% of respondents.

Conclusion

Respondents had struggled to achieve the necessary competencies for CCT even prior to the newly reduced 4-year curriculum. While still maintaining service provision, we must safeguard gastroenterology training from encroaching GIM commitments. This will be critical in order to provide capable consultants of the future and prevent UK standards from falling behind internationally.

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.

Establishing key performance indicators for inflammatory bowel disease in the UK

Background and aims

Healthcare quality improvement (QI) is the systematic process to continuously improve the quality of care and outcomes for patients. The landmark Inflammatory Bowel Disease (IBD) UK National Audits provided a means to measure the variation in care, highlighting the need to define the standards of excellence in IBD care. Through a consensus approach, we aimed to establish key performance indicators (KPIs), providing reliable benchmarks for IBD care delivery in UK.

Methods

KPIs that measure critical aspects of a patient journey within an IBD service were identified though stakeholder meetings. A two-stage Delphi consensus was then conducted. The first involved a multidisciplinary team of IBD clinicians and patients to refine definitions and methodology. The second stage assessed feasibility and utility of the proposed QI process by surveying gastroenterology services across UK.

Results

First, the four proposed KPIs were refined and included time from primary care referral to diagnosis in secondary care, time to treatment recommendation following a diagnosis, appropriate use of steroids and advanced therapies prescreening and assessment. Second, the Delphi consensus reported >85% agreement on the feasibility of local adoption of the QI process and >75% agreement on the utility of benchmarking of the KPIs.

Conclusions

Through a structured approach, we propose quantifiable KPIs for benchmarking to improve and reduce the individual variation in IBD care across the UK.

Optimizing adenoma detection in screening-related colonoscopy

INTRODUCTION

Screening-related colonoscopy is a vital component of screening initiatives to both diagnose and prevent colorectal cancer (CRC), with prevention being reliant upon early and accurate detection of pre-malignant lesions. Several strategies, techniques, and interventions exist to optimize endoscopists' adenoma detection rates (ADR).

AREAS COVERED

This narrative review provides an overview of the importance of ADR and other colonoscopy quality indicators. It then summarizes the available evidence regarding the effectiveness of the following domains in terms of improving ADR: endoscopist factors, pre-procedural parameters, peri-procedural parameters, intra-procedural strategies and techniques, antispasmodics, distal attachment devices, enhanced colonoscopy technologies, enhanced optics, and artificial intelligence. These summaries are based on an electronic search of the databases Embase, Pubmed, and Cochrane performed on December 12, 2022.

EXPERT OPINION

Given the prevalence and associated morbidity and mortality of CRC, the quality of screening-related colonoscopy quality is appropriately prioritized by patients, endoscopists, units, and payers alike. Endoscopists performing colonoscopy should be up to date regarding available strategies, techniques, and interventions to optimize their performance.

The Saudi Gastroenterology Association guidelines for quality indicators in gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures

The quality and safety of gastrointestinal endoscopy varies considerably across regions and facilities worldwide. In this field, quality management has traditionally focused on individual performance of endoscopists, with most indicators addressing process measures and limited evidence of improvement in health outcomes. Indicators of quality can be classified according to their nature and sequence. The various professional societies and organizations have proposed many systems of indicators, but a universal system is necessary so that healthcare professionals are not overburdened and confused with a variety of quality improvement approaches. In this paper, we propose guidelines by the Saudi Gastroenterology Association pertaining to quality in endoscopic procedures aiming to improve the awareness of endoscopy unit staff toward important quality indications to enhance and standardize quality of care provided to our patients.

Role of artificial intelligence-guided esophagogastroduodenoscopy in assessing the procedural completeness and quality

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

The quality of esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) can have great impact on the detection of esophageal and gastric lesions, including malignancies. The aim of the study is to investigate the use of artificial intelligence (AI) during EGD by the  endoscopists-in-training so that a real-time feedback can be provided, ensuring compliance to a pre-decided protocol for examination.

METHODS

This is an observational pilot study. The videos of the EGD procedure performed between August 1, 2021, and September 30, 2021, were prospectively analyzed using AI system. The assessment of completeness of the procedure was done based on the visualizsation of pre-defined 29 locations. Endoscopists were divided into two categories - whether they are in the training period (category A) or have competed their endoscopy training (category B).

RESULTS

A total of 277 procedures, which included 114 category-A and 163 category-B endoscopists, respectively, were included. Most commonly covered areas by the endoscopists were greater curvature of antrum (97.47%), second part of duodenum (96.75%), other parts of antrum such as the anterior, lesser curvature and the posterior aspect (96.75%, 94.95%, and 94.22%, respectively). Commonly missed or inadequately seen areas were vocal cords (99.28%), epiglottis (93.14%) and posterior, anterior, and lateral aspect of incisura (78.70%, 73.65%, and 73.53%, respectively). The good quality procedures were done predominantly by categoryB endoscopists (88.68% vs. 11.32%, p < 0.00001).

CONCLUSION

AI can play an important role in assessing the quality and completeness of EGD and can be a part of training of endoscopy in future.

JAG consensus statements for training and certification in flexible sigmoidoscopy

Introduction

Joint Advisory Group (JAG) certification in endoscopy is awarded when trainees attain minimum competency standards for independent practice. A national evidence-based review was undertaken to update standards for training and certification in flexible sigmoidoscopy (FS).

Methods

A modified Delphi process was conducted between 2019 and 2020 with multisociety representation from experts and trainees. Following literature review and Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations appraisal, recommendation statements on FS training and certification were formulated and subjected to anonymous voting to obtain consensus. Accepted statements were peer-reviewed by national stakeholders for incorporation into the JAG FS certification pathway.

Results

In total, 41 recommendation statements were generated under the domains of: definition of competence (13), acquisition of competence (17), assessment of competence (7) and postcertification support (4). The consensus process led to revised criteria for colonoscopy certification, comprising: (A) achieving key performance indicators defined within British Society of Gastroenterology standards (ie, rectal retroversion >90%, polyp retrieval rate >90%, patient comfort <10% with moderate-severe discomfort); (B) minimum procedure count ≥175; (C) performing 15+ procedures over the preceding 3 months; (D) attendance of the JAG Basic Skills in Lower gastrointestinal Endoscopy course; (E) satisfying requirements for formative direct observation of procedural skill (DOPS) and direct observation of polypectomy skill (SMSA level 1); (F) evidence of reflective practice as documented on the JAG Endoscopy Training System reflection tool and (G) successful performance in summative DOPS.

Conclusion

The UK standards for training and certification in FS have been updated to support training, uphold standards in FS and polypectomy, and provide support to the newly independent practitioner.

JAG consensus statements for training and certification in colonoscopy

Introduction

In the UK, endoscopy certification is awarded when trainees attain minimum competency standards for independent practice. A national evidence-based review was undertaken to update and develop standards and recommendations for colonoscopy training and certification.

Methods

Under the oversight of the Joint Advisory Group (JAG), a modified Delphi process was conducted between 2019 and 2020 with multisociety expert representation. Following literature review and Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations appraisal, recommendation statements on colonoscopy training and certification were formulated and subjected to anonymous voting to obtain consensus. Accepted statements were peer reviewed by JAG and relevant stakeholders for incorporation into the updated colonoscopy certification pathway.

Results

In total, 45 recommendation statements were generated under the domains of: definition of competence (13), acquisition of competence (20), assessment of competence (8) and postcertification support (4). The consensus process led to revised criteria for colonoscopy certification, comprising: (1) achieving key performance indicators defined within British Society of Gastroenterology standards (ie, unassisted caecal intubation rate >90%, rectal retroversion >90%, polyp detection rate >15%+, polyp retrieval rate >90%, patient comfort <10% with moderate–severe discomfort); (2) minimum procedure count 280+; (3) performing 15+ procedures over the preceding 3 months; (4) attendance of the JAG Basic Skills in Colonoscopy course; (5) terminal ileal intubation rates of 60%+ in inflammatory bowel disease; (6) satisfying requirements for formative direct observation of procedure skills (DOPS) and direct observation of polypectomy skills (Size, Morphology, Site, Access (SMSA) level 2); (7) evidence of reflective practice as documented on the JAG Endoscopy Training System reflection tool; (8) successful performance in summative DOPS.

Conclusion

The UK standards for training and certification in colonoscopy have been updated, culminating in a single-stage certification process with emphasis on polypectomy competency (SMSA Level 2+). These standards are intended to support training, improve standards of colonoscopy and polypectomy, and provide support to the newly independent practitioner.

Colonoscopy surveillance following adenoma removal to reduce the risk of colorectal cancer: a retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

Colonoscopy surveillance is recommended for some patients post polypectomy. The 2002 UK surveillance guidelines classify post-polypectomy patients into low, intermediate and high risk, and recommend different strategies for each classification. Limited evidence supports these guidelines.

OBJECTIVES

To examine, for each risk group, long-term colorectal cancer incidence by baseline characteristics and the number of surveillance visits; the effects of interval length on detection rates of advanced adenomas and colorectal cancer at first surveillance; and the cost-effectiveness of surveillance compared with no surveillance.

DESIGN

A retrospective cohort study and economic evaluation.

SETTING

Seventeen NHS hospitals.

PARTICIPANTS

Patients with a colonoscopy and at least one adenoma at baseline.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Long-term colorectal cancer incidence after baseline and detection rates of advanced adenomas and colorectal cancer at first surveillance.

DATA SOURCES

Hospital databases, NHS Digital, the Office for National Statistics, National Services Scotland and Public Health England.

METHODS

Cox regression was used to compare colorectal cancer incidence in the presence and absence of surveillance and to identify colorectal cancer risk factors. Risk factors were used to stratify risk groups into higher- and lower-risk subgroups. We examined detection rates of advanced adenomas and colorectal cancer at first surveillance by interval length. Cost-effectiveness of surveillance compared with no surveillance was evaluated in terms of incremental costs per colorectal cancer prevented and per quality-adjusted life-year gained.

RESULTS

Our study included 28,972 patients, of whom 14,401 (50%), 11,852 (41%) and 2719 (9%) were classed as low, intermediate and high risk, respectively. The median follow-up time was 9.3 years. Colorectal cancer incidence was 140, 221 and 366 per 100,000 person-years among low-, intermediate- and high-risk patients, respectively. Attendance at one surveillance visit was associated with reduced colorectal cancer incidence among low-, intermediate- and high-risk patients [hazard ratios were 0.56 (95% confidence interval 0.39 to 0.80), 0.59 (95% confidence interval 0.43 to 0.81) and 0.49 (95% confidence interval 0.29 to 0.82), respectively]. Compared with the general population, colorectal cancer incidence without surveillance was similar among low-risk patients and higher among high-risk patients [standardised incidence ratios were 0.86 (95% confidence interval 0.73 to 1.02) and 1.91 (95% confidence interval 1.39 to 2.56), respectively]. For intermediate-risk patients, standardised incidence ratios differed for the lower- (0.70, 95% confidence interval 0.48 to 0.99) and higher-risk (1.46, 95% confidence interval 1.19 to 1.78) subgroups. In each risk group, incremental costs per colorectal cancer prevented and per quality-adjusted life-year gained with surveillance were lower for the higher-risk subgroup than for the lower-risk subgroup. Incremental costs per quality-adjusted life-year gained were lowest for the higher-risk subgroup of high-risk patients at £7821.

LIMITATIONS

The observational design means that we cannot assume that surveillance caused the reductions in cancer incidence. The fact that some cancer staging data were missing places uncertainty on our cost-effectiveness estimates.

CONCLUSIONS

Surveillance was associated with reduced colorectal cancer incidence in all risk groups. However, in low-risk patients and the lower-risk subgroup of intermediate-risk patients, colorectal cancer incidence was no higher than in the general population without surveillance, indicating that surveillance might not be necessary. Surveillance was most cost-effective for the higher-risk subgroup of high-risk patients.

FUTURE WORK

Studies should examine the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of post-polypectomy surveillance without prior classification of patients into risk groups.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

This trial is registered as ISRCTN15213649.

FUNDING

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 26, No. 26. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

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.

Impact of cumulative experience on the quality of screening colonoscopy: A 13-year observational study

OBJECTIVE

To investigate trends in quality of screening colonoscopy (using the Global Rating Score) in the 13 years since introduction of the Bowel Cancer Screening Programme in England.

SETTING

An English Bowel Cancer Screening Programme colonoscopy service from 2007 to 2019.

METHODS

A retrospective observational study was undertaken using a prospectively collected database in order to analyse trends in screening endoscopies (including patients following positive faecal occult blood test or with high-risk findings on flexible sigmoidoscopy). The Global Rating Score quality indicators for Bowel Cancer Screening Programme colonoscopy were used as outcome measures, and trends over time were analysed. These included caecal intubation rate, adenoma detection rate, colorectal cancer detection rate, proportion of patients with minimal or mild discomfort scores, proportion of patients who required intravenous sedation, and adverse events.

RESULTS

There were 5352 colonoscopies included, performed by 3 endoscopists; 73.8% were index procedures (i.e. first Bowel Cancer Screening Programme colonoscopy) and the remainder were follow-up or surveillance colonoscopies. The mean age of patients was 66 (standard deviation 5) years, and 59.8% were male. Mean age increased over time (R²=0.033; p < 0.001). There were significant trends over time towards higher caecal intubation rate (p = 0.015), higher adenoma detection rate (p < 0.001), lower proportion requiring intravenous sedation (p < 0.001). There were no significant trends in comfort scores (p = 0.606), adverse events (p = 0.503) or colorectal cancer detection (p = 0.089).

CONCLUSION

There was a consistent improvement in the Global Rating Score for Bowel Cancer Screening Programme colonoscopies since the start of the programme, even when quality was already high at the start. Patients can expect high-quality colonoscopy when participating in the Bowel Cancer Screening Programme.

Heterogeneity in colorectal cancer incidence among people recommended 3-yearly surveillance post-polypectomy: a validation study

BACKGROUND

 Colonoscopy surveillance is recommended for patients at increased risk of colorectal cancer (CRC) following adenoma removal. Low-, intermediate-, and high-risk groups are defined by baseline adenoma characteristics. We previously examined intermediate-risk patients from hospital data and identified a higher-risk subgroup who benefited from surveillance and a lower-risk subgroup who may not require surveillance. This study explored whether these findings apply in individuals undergoing CRC screening.

METHODS

 This retrospective study used data from the UK Flexible Sigmoidoscopy Screening Trial (UKFSST), English CRC screening pilot (ECP), and US Kaiser Permanente CRC prevention program (KPCP). Screening participants (50 - 74 years) classified as intermediate-risk at baseline colonoscopy were included. CRC data were available through 2006 (KPCP) or 2014 (UKFSST, ECP). Lower- and higher-risk subgroups were defined using our previously identified baseline risk factors: higher-risk participants had incomplete colonoscopies, poor bowel preparation, adenomas ≥ 20 mm or with high-grade dysplasia, or proximal polyps. We compared CRC incidence in these subgroups and in the presence vs. absence of surveillance using Cox regression.

RESULTS

 Of 2291 intermediate-risk participants, 45 % were classified as higher risk. Median follow-up was 11.8 years. CRC incidence was higher in the higher-risk than lower-risk subgroup (hazard ratio [HR] 2.08, 95 % confidence interval [CI] 1.07 - 4.06). Surveillance reduced CRC incidence in higher-risk participants (HR 0.35, 95 %CI 0.14 - 0.86) but not statistically significantly so in lower-risk participants (HR 0.41, 95 %CI 0.12 - 1.38).

CONCLUSION

 As previously demonstrated for hospital patients, screening participants classified as intermediate risk comprised two risk subgroups. Surveillance clearly benefited the higher-risk subgroup.

Associations between endoscopist feedback and improvements in colonoscopy quality indicators: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Colonoscopy quality indicators such as adenoma detection rate (ADR) are surrogates for the effectiveness of screening-related colonoscopy. It is unclear whether endoscopist feedback on these indicators improves performance. We performed a meta-analysis to determine whether associations exist between endoscopist feedback and colonoscopy performance.

METHODS

We conducted a search through May 2019 for studies reporting on endoscopist feedback and associations with ADR or other colonoscopy quality indicators. Pooled rate ratios (RRs) and weighted mean differences were calculated using DerSimonian and Laird random effects models. Subgroup, sensitivity, and meta-regression analyses were performed to assess for potential methodological or clinical factors associated with outcomes.

RESULTS

From 1326 initial studies, 12 studies were included in the meta-analysis for ADR, representing 33,184 colonoscopies. Endoscopist feedback was associated with an improvement in ADR (RR, 1.21; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.09-1.34). Low performers derived a greater benefit from feedback (RR, 1.62; 95% CI, 1.18-2.23) compared with moderate performers (RR, 1.19; 95% CI, 1.11-1.29), whereas high performers did not derive a significant benefit (RR, 1.06; 95% CI, 0.99-1.13). Feedback was not associated with increases in withdrawal time (weighted mean difference, +0.43 minutes; 95% CI, -0.50 to +1.36 minutes) or improvements in cecal intubation rate (RR, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.99-1.01).

CONCLUSION

Endoscopist feedback is associated with modest improvements in ADR. The implementation of routine endoscopist audit and feedback should be considered alongside other quality improvement interventions in institutions dedicated to the provision of high-quality screening-related colonoscopy.

Upper gastrointestinal bleeding: Causes and patient outcomes

BACKGROUND

Upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB) remains a healthcare burden and is associated with considerable morbidity and mortality. We aim to describe the presentation, clinical, and laboratory characteristics of patients presenting with UGIB as well as important patient outcomes.

METHODS

This is a retrospective study performed at a tertiary care university hospital in Riyadh. Electronic endoscopic reports of patients undergoing gastroscopies for the indication of UGIB from January 2006 to January 2015 were included. Demographic data, past medical conditions, medications used, symptoms on presentation, as well as the patients' hemodynamic status, laboratory investigations on presentations, the need for blood products, the need for admission to an intensive care unit, rebleeding, and in-hospital mortality rates were retrieved from medical records.

RESULTS

Two hundred fifty-nine patients were included with a mean age of 57.1 years and males constituted 66.8% of the study cohort. At least one comorbidity was present in 88.2%, while 20.7% had a history of prior UGIB, 12.6% had a history of peptic ulcer disease, and 9.2% had known esophageal varices. A nonvariceal source represented 80.1% of the causes (95% CI: 75.4 to 85.3%), 15.5% required admission to the intensive care unit (ICU), the rebleeding rate was 8.9% (95% CI; 5.7% to 12.2%) while the in-hospital mortality was 4.4% (95% CI; 2.4% to 6.9%). The mean pre-endoscopic Rockall score was 2.6 (range: 0 to 5), while the total Rockall score was 4.4 (range: 1 to 9). There was no association between the pre-endoscopic Rockall score and rebleeding (3.0 vs. 2.5, P = 0.27) or need for ICU admission (3.2 vs. 2.4, P = 0.08), the total Rockall score and rebleeding (5.0 vs. 4.4, P = 0.58) or need for ICU admission (5.0 vs. 4.3, P = 0.36).

CONCLUSION

Causes of UGIB in this patient population were predominantly nonvariceal and the rebleeding and mortality rates resembled those of other studies.

British Society of Gastroenterology (BSG)-led multisociety consensus care bundle for the early clinical management of acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding

Medical care bundles improve standards of care and patient outcomes. Acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding (AUGIB) is a common medical emergency which has been consistently associated with suboptimal care. We aimed to develop a multisociety care bundle centred on the early management of AUGIB. Commissioned by the British Society of Gastroenterology (BSG), a UK multisociety task force was assembled to produce an evidence-based and consensus-based care bundle detailing key interventions to be performed within 24 hours of presentation with AUGIB. A modified Delphi process was conducted with stakeholder representation from BSG, Association of Upper Gastrointestinal Surgeons, Society for Acute Medicine and the National Blood Transfusion Service of the UK. A formal literature search was conducted and international AUGIB guidelines reviewed. Evidence was appraised using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation tool and statements were formulated and subjected to anonymous electronic voting to achieve consensus. Accepted statements were eligible for incorporation into the final bundle after a separate round of voting. The final version of the care bundle was reviewed by the BSG Clinical Services and Standards Committee and approved by all stakeholder groups. Consensus was reached on 19 statements; these culminated in 14 corresponding care bundle items, contained within 6 management domains: Recognition, Resuscitation, Risk assessment, Rx (Treatment), Refer and Review. A multisociety care bundle for AUGIB has been developed to facilitate timely delivery of evidence-based interventions and drive quality improvement and patient outcomes in AUGIB.

Device-assisted enteroscopy training. A rapid review

Device-assisted enteroscopy is currently lacking a validated training model, in contrast to the other major technique used for the study of the small bowel, namely capsule endoscopy. Training should be based on defining and achieving competency for the acquisition of the knowledge and skills required to perform enteroscopy in a safe and effective manner. The need for training is clear, since the technique is considered an advanced endoscopy form that requires maneuvers that differ from the usual ones that must be learned, in addition to specific equipment. Therefore, the ideal candidates for this training include professionals with accredited experience in therapeutic digestive endoscopy. Amongst the recommendations issued regarding device-assisted enteroscopy training, the estimation of small-bowel insertion depth and the choice of the examination route, whether oral or anal, should be highlighted. Learning curve descriptions have the limitation of being explorer-dependent with no consensus on the parameter that should be selected to establish a correct learning curve in enteroscopy. The most commonly used parameter is insertion depth. The few training models that have been proposed recommend using a highly useful tool, namely simulators and to start practicing under expert guidance. Based on the variability of published data, an experienced endoscopist may perform enteroscopy in a safe and effective manner after 5 to 35 training procedures. Although reaching the expert level requires prolonged clinical practice with exposure to the various disorders of the small bowel.