Canadian credentialing guidelines for colonoscopy

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.

Association Between Endoscopist Specialty and Colonoscopy Quality: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Colonoscopy quality indicators provide measurable assessments of performance, but significant provider-level variations exist. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess whether endoscopist specialty is associated with adenoma detection rate (ADR) - the primary outcome - or cecal intubation rate, adverse event rates, and post-colonoscopy colorectal cancer rates.

METHODS

We searched EMBASE, Google Scholar, MEDLINE, and the Cochrane Central Registry of Controlled Trials from inception to December 14, 2020. Two reviewers independently screened titles and abstracts. Citations underwent duplicate full-text review, with disagreements resolved by a third reviewer. Data were abstracted in duplicate. The DerSimonian and Laird random effects model was used to calculate pooled odds ratios (ORs) with respective 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Risk of bias was assessed using Risk of Bias in Non-randomised Studies of Interventions.

RESULTS

Of 11,314 citations, 36 studies representing 3,500,832 colonoscopies were included. Compared with colonoscopies performed by gastroenterologists, those by surgeons were associated with lower ADRs (OR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.74-0.88) and lower cecal intubation rates (OR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.63-0.92). Compared with colonoscopies performed by gastroenterologists, those by other (non-gastroenterologist, non-surgeon) endoscopists were associated with lower ADRs (OR, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.87-0.96), higher perforation rates (OR, 3.02; 95% CI, 1.65-5.51), and higher post-colonoscopy colorectal cancer rates (OR, 1.23; 95% CI, 1.14-1.33). Substantial to considerable heterogeneity existed for most analyses, and overall certainty in the evidence was low according to the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations framework.

CONCLUSION

Colonoscopies performed by surgeons or other endoscopists were associated with poorer quality metrics and outcomes compared with those performed by gastroenterologists. Targeted quality improvement efforts may be warranted.

Lower gastrointestinal polypectomy competencies in the United Kingdom: a retrospective analysis of Directly Observed Polypectomy Skills (DOPyS)

BACKGROUND

Polypectomy is often the most hazardous part of colonoscopy. There is significant variability in polypectomy training and assessment internationally. DOPyS (Directly Observed Polypectomy Skills) is a validated assessment tool and is used to demonstrate polypectomy competency in the UK. This study aimed to describe the learning curve for polypectomy competency in UK trainees.

METHODS

Retrospective DOPyS data (January 2009 to September 2015) were obtained from the UK Joint Advisory Group (JAG) for intestinal endoscopy training system (JETS) national database. The number of lower gastrointestinal (LGI) procedures, overall cecal intubation rate (CIR), procedure intensity, and time in days to the first DOPyS assessment were recorded, and time to JAG certification was calculated.

RESULTS

4965 DOPyS assessments from 336 trainees were analyzed. Within the study period, 124 and 53 trainees achieved provisional and full colonoscopy certification, respectively. Trainees started formative assessment of polypectomy after > 130 LGI procedures and with a CIR of > 70 %. Within 3 years from the first DOPyS assessment, 94 % of trainees achieved provisional certification, and 50 % full certification. Higher procedure intensity at baseline DOPyS assessment was associated with a higher likelihood of obtaining certification sooner.

CONCLUSION

There is a significant variation in time to competency, and this potentially reflects the time necessary to acquire polypectomy skills. There is a need to start polypectomy training earlier, once sufficient skills, such as tip control, have been achieved to shorten the time to competency. Overall, the CIR could be used as a guide for such technical skills. Increasing exposure to training lists also potentially reduces the time to polypectomy competency.

Systematic literature review of learning curves for colorectal polyp resection techniques in lower gastrointestinal endoscopy

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.

Colonoscopy learning curves for colorectal surgery fellow trainees: experiences with the 15-year colonoscopy training program

Purpose

This study aimed to analyze the learning curves for colorectal surgery fellows in a colonoscopy training program.

Methods

Between May 2003 and February 2017, 60 surgical fellows joined our 1-year colonoscopy training program as trainees and performed 43,784 cases of colonoscopy. All trainees recorded their colonoscopy experiences prospectively into the database. After excluding 6 trainees, who had experience with performing more than 50 colonoscopies before participating in our training program or who discontinued our training program with experience performing less than 300 colonoscopies, this study included 54 trainees who had performed 39,539 colonoscopy cases. We analyzed the cecal intubation rate (CIR) and cecal intubation time (CIT) using the cumulative sum (Cusum) technique and moving average method to assess the technical colonoscopy competence.

Results

Overall, the CIR by the trainees was 80.7%. The median number of cases of colonoscopy performed during the training period for each trainee was 696 (range, 322–1,669). The trainees were able to achieve a 90% CIR with 412 and 493 procedures when analyzed using the moving average and the Cusum, respectively. Using the moving average method, CIRs after 150, 300, and 400 procedures were 67.0%, 84.1%, and 89.2%, respectively. The CIT of trainees continuously decreased until 400 successful cases. Median CITs were 9.4, 8.3, and 7.4 minutes at 150, 300, and 400 successful cases, respectively.

Conclusion

We found that more than 400 cases of experience were needed for technical competence in colonoscopy. Continuous teaching and monitoring is required until trainees become sufficiently competent.

Independent Heath Facility Meets Cancer Care Ontario and Canadian Association of Gastroenterology Guidelines for Endoscopic Procedure Wait Times While Meeting Quality Indicators: A Retrospective Review

BACKGROUND

Canadian independent health facilities (IHFs) have been implemented to reduce hospital endoscopy volume and expedite endoscopic evaluations for patients suspected to have underlying colorectal cancer.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective review of a prospective database at a large-volume urban IHF. The primary outcomes were wait times, and the secondary outcomes were colonoscopy quality indicators and complication rates.

RESULTS

Median wait times from referral to colonoscopy met the recommendations set out by the Canadian Association of Gastroenterology and Cancer Care Ontario for all indications: chronic abdominal pain: 43 days; new onset change in bowel habits: 36 days; bright red rectal bleeding: 42 days; documented iron-deficiency anemia: 43 days; fecal occult blood test positive: 38 days; cancer likely based on imaging or physical exam: 23 days; chronic diarrhea and chronic constipation: 42 days; and screening colonoscopies: 55 days. Secondary outcomes of quality indicators and complication rates all met or exceeded the CCO and CAG recommendations.

CONCLUSIONS

This IHF met the recommended wait times for all indications for colonoscopy while maintaining high procedural quality and safety. IHFs are one solution to help meet the increasing demand for colonoscopy in Ontario.

A prospective comparison of live and video-based assessments of colonoscopy performance

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Colonoscopy performance is typically assessed by a supervisor in the clinical setting. There are limitations of this approach, however, because it allows for rater bias and increases supervisor workload demand during the procedure. Video-based assessment of recorded procedures has been proposed as a complementary means by which to assess colonoscopy performance. This study sought to investigate the reliability, validity, and feasibility of video-based assessments of competence in performing colonoscopy compared with live assessment.

METHODS

Novice (<50 previous colonoscopies), intermediate (50-500), and experienced (>1000) endoscopists from 5 hospitals participated. Two views of each colonoscopy were videotaped: an endoscopic (intraluminal) view and a recording of the endoscopist's hand movements. Recorded procedures were independently assessed by 2 blinded experts using the Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Competency Assessment Tool (GiECAT), a validated procedure-specific assessment tool comprising a global rating scale (GRS) and checklist (CL). Live ratings were conducted by a non-blinded expert endoscopist. Outcomes included agreement between live and blinded video-based ratings of clinical colonoscopies, intra-rater reliability, inter-rater reliability and discriminative validity of video-based assessments, and perceived ease of assessment.

RESULTS

Forty endoscopists participated (20 novices, 10 intermediates, and 10 experienced). There was good agreement between the live and video-based ratings (total, intra-class correlation [ICC] = 0.847; GRS, ICC = 0.868; CL, ICC = 0.749). Intra-rater reliability was excellent (total, ICC = 0.99; GRS, ICC = 0.99; CL, ICC = 0.98). Inter-rater reliability between the 2 blinded video-based raters was high (total, ICC = 0.91; GRS, ICC = 0.918; CL, ICC = 0.862). GiECAT total, GRS, and CL scores differed significantly among novice, intermediate, and experienced endoscopists (P < .001). Video-based assessments were perceived as "fairly easy," although live assessments were rated as significantly easier (P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

Video-based assessments of colonoscopy procedures using the GiECAT have strong evidence of reliability and validity. In addition, assessments using videos were feasible, although live assessments were easier.

Impact of experience on self-assessment accuracy of clinical colonoscopy competence

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Self-assessment is important for life-long learning and a recommended assessment method for endoscopy skills. Prior literature has not investigated self-assessment accuracy of colonoscopic competence in the clinical setting. This study aimed to determine the self-assessment accuracy of novice, intermediate, and experienced endoscopists.

METHODS

Novice (performed <50 previous colonoscopies), intermediate (50-500), and experienced (>1000) endoscopists from 5 hospitals each performed a clinical colonoscopy. Video recordings of procedures were independently assessed by 2 blinded expert endoscopists by using the Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Competency Assessment Tool (GiECAT). Externally assessed and self-assessed GiECAT scores were defined as the mean of the 2 video-based ratings and as participants' own assigned ratings, respectively. Self-assessment accuracy between the externally assessed and self-assessed scores was evaluated by using absolute difference scores, intraclass correlation coefficients, and the Bland-Altman analysis.

RESULTS

Twenty novice, 10 intermediate, and 10 experienced endoscopists participated. There was moderate agreement of externally assessed and self-assessed GiECAT scores, with an intraclass correlation coefficient of 0.65 (95% confidence interval, 0.44-0.80). The absolute difference scores among the 3 groups were significantly different (P = .002), with experienced endoscopists demonstrating a more accurate self-assessment ability compared with novices (P = .002). Bland-Altman plots suggest that novice and experienced endoscopists tend to overrate and underrate their clinical competence, respectively; no specific trends were associated with intermediates.

CONCLUSION

Participants demonstrated moderate self-assessment accuracy of clinical competence. Endoscopist experience was positively associated with self-assessment accuracy; novices demonstrated lower self-assessment accuracy compared with experienced endoscopists. Moreover, novices tended to overestimate their performances. Novice endoscopists may benefit from targeted interventions to improve self-assessment accuracy.

Full spectrum endoscopy (FUSE) versus standard forward-viewing endoscope (SFV) in a high-risk population

OBJECTIVES

To investigate the diagnostic performance of Full Spectrum Endoscopy (FUSE) compared to a conventional standard forward-viewing endoscope (SFV). The primary outcome was adenoma detection rate (ADR) and mean adenoma detection. Secondary outcome was feasibility of FUSE opposed to SFV.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Consecutive patients participating in the Danish colorectal cancer (CRC) screening programme were prospectively included in the study (n = 205). Demographic and health-related characteristics were obtained. Following procedural parameters were recorded: completion rate, caecal intubation time, fentanyl and midazolam sedation, CRC detection, ADR, diverticulosis, bowel preparation, patient discomfort and endoscopist difficulty rating. Participants underwent FUSE colonoscopy on days when the FUSE system was available, while the remaining participants had SFV. All colonoscopies were performed by two trained endoscopists.

RESULTS

A total of 109 patients were included in the FUSE group and 106 in the SFV group. Groups were comparable in baseline characteristics. Completion rate was 83.5% and 93.4% in the FUSE and SFV groups (p = .040). Caecal intubation time was 11.4 ± 6.7 min versus 9.1 ± 6.2 min in the FUSE and SFV groups (p = .040). ADR was 67.0% and 59.6% (p = .097), while the mean adenoma detection was 1.79 and 1.38 (p = .022) in the FUSE and SFV groups. Endoscopists reported increased difficulty rating with FUSE compared to SFV (p > .001).

CONCLUSION

FUSE colonoscopy provides a higher mean adenoma detection and there is tendency toward higher ADR compared to SFV in a high-risk population. Nonetheless, FUSE colonoscopy has a lower completion rate, longer caecal intubation time and a higher difficulty rating from an endoscopist point of view.

In-training gastrointestinal endoscopy competency assessment tools: Types of tools, validation and impact

The ability to perform endoscopy procedures safely, effectively and efficiently is a core element of gastroenterology practice. Training programs strive to ensure learners demonstrate sufficient competence to deliver high quality endoscopic care independently at completion of training. In-training assessments are an essential component of gastrointestinal endoscopy education, required to support training and optimize learner's capabilities. There are several approaches to in-training endoscopy assessment from direct observation of procedural skills to monitoring of surrogate measures of endoscopy skills such as procedural volume and quality metrics. This review outlines the current state of evidence as it pertains to in-training assessment of competency in performing gastrointestinal endoscopy as part of an overall endoscopy quality and skills training program.

Impact of a simulation training curriculum on technical and nontechnical skills in colonoscopy: a randomized trial

BACKGROUND

GI endoscopy simulation-based training augments early clinical performance; however, the optimal manner by which to deliver training is unknown.

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to validate a simulation-based structured comprehensive curriculum (SCC) designed to teach technical, cognitive, and integrative competencies in colonoscopy.

DESIGN

Single-blinded, randomized, controlled trial.

SETTING

Endoscopic simulation course at an academic hospital.

PARTICIPANTS AND INTERVENTIONS

Thirty-three novice endoscopists were allocated to an SCC group or self-regulated learning (SRL) group. The SCC group received a curriculum consisting of 6 hours of didactic lectures and 8 hours of virtual reality simulation-based training with expert feedback. The SRL group was provided a list of desired objectives and was instructed to practice on the simulator for an equivalent time (8 hours).

MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS

Clinical transfer was assessed during 2 patient colonoscopies using the Joint Advisory Group Direct Observation of Procedural Skills (JAG DOPS) scale. Secondary outcome measures included differences in procedural knowledge, immediate post-training simulation performance, and delayed post-training (4-6 weeks) performance during an integrated scenario test on the JAG DOPS communication and integrated scenario global rating scales.

RESULTS

There was no significant difference in baseline or post-training performance on the simulator task. The SCC group performed superiorly during their first and second clinical colonoscopies. Additionally, the SCC group demonstrated significantly better knowledge and colonoscopy-specific performance, communication, and global performance during the integrated scenario.

LIMITATIONS

We were unable to measure SRL participants' effort outside of mandatory training. In addition, feedback metrics and number of available simulation cases are limited.

CONCLUSIONS

These results support integration of endoscopy simulation into a structured curriculum incorporating instructional feedback and complementary didactic knowledge as a means to augment technical, cognitive, and integrative skills acquisition, as compared with SRL on virtual reality simulators. (

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT01991522.)

Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Competency Assessment Tool: development of a procedure-specific assessment tool for colonoscopy

BACKGROUND

Ensuring competence remains a seminal objective of endoscopy training programs, professional organizations, and accreditation bodies; however, no widely accepted measure of endoscopic competence currently exists.

OBJECTIVE

By using Delphi methodology, we aimed to develop and establish the content validity of the Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Competency Assessment Tool for colonoscopy.

DESIGN

An international panel of endoscopy experts rated potential checklist and global rating items for their importance as indicators of the competence of trainees learning to perform colonoscopy. After each round, responses were analyzed and sent back to the experts for further ratings until consensus was reached.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS

Consensus was defined a priori as ≥80% of experts, in a given round, scoring ≥4 of 5 on all remaining items.

RESULTS

Fifty-five experts agreed to be part of the Delphi panel: 43 gastroenterologists, 10 surgeons, and 2 endoscopy managers. Seventy-three checklist and 34 global rating items were generated through a systematic literature review and survey of committee members. An additional 2 checklist and 4 global rating items were added by Delphi panelists. Five rounds of surveys were completed before consensus was achieved, with response rates ranging from 67% to 100%. Seven global ratings and 19 checklist items reached consensus as good indicators of the competence of clinicians performing colonoscopy.

LIMITATIONS

Further validation required.

CONCLUSION

Delphi methodology allowed for the rigorous development and content validation of a new measure of endoscopic competence, reflective of practice across institutions. Although further evaluation is required, it is a promising step toward the objective assessment of competency for use in colonoscopy training, practice, and research.

Colonoscopy quality assurance in Ontario: Systematic review and clinical practice guideline

Colonoscopy is fundamental to the diagnosis and management of digestive diseases and plays a key role in colorectal cancer (CRC) screening and diagnosis. Therefore, it is important to ensure that colonoscopy is of high quality. The present guidance document updates the evidence and recommendations in Cancer Care Ontario's 2007 Colonoscopy Standards, and was conducted under the aegis of the Program in Evidence-Based Care. It is intended to support quality improvement for colonoscopies for all indications, including follow-up to a positive fecal occult blood test, screening for individuals who have a family history of CRC and those at average risk, investigation for symptomatic patients, and surveillance of those with a history of adenomatous polyps or CRC. A systematic review was performed to evaluate the existing evidence concerning the following three key aspects of colonoscopy: physician endoscopist training and maintenance of competency; institutional quality assurance parameters; and colonoscopy quality indicators and auditable outcomes. Where appropriate, indicators were designated quality indicators (where there was sufficient evidence to recommend a specific target) and auditable outcomes (insufficient evidence to recommend a specific target, but which should be monitored for quality assurance purposes). The guidance document may be used to support colonoscopy quality assurance programs to improve the quality of colonoscopy regardless of indication. Improvements in colonoscopy quality are anticipated to improve important outcomes in digestive diseases, such as reduction of the incidence of and mortality from CRC.

Current status of core and advanced adult gastrointestinal endoscopy training in Canada: Survey of existing accredited programs

OBJECTIVE

To determine the current status of core and advanced adult gastroenterology training in Canada.

METHODS

A survey consisting of 20 questions pertaining to core and advanced endoscopy training was circulated to 14 accredited adult gastroenterology residency program directors. For continuous variables, median and range were analyzed; for categorical variables, percentage and associated 95% CIs were analyzed.

RESULTS

All 14 programs responded to the survey. The median number of core trainees was six (range four to 16). The median (range) procedural volumes for gastroscopy, colonoscopy, percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy and sigmoidoscopy, respectively, were 400 (150 to 1000), 325 (200 to 1500), 15 (zero to 250) and 60 (25 to 300). Eleven of 13 (84.6%) programs used endoscopy simulators in their curriculum. Eight of 14 programs (57%) provided a structured advanced endoscopy training fellowship. The majority (88%) offered training of combined endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) and endoscopic ultrasonography. The median number of positions offered yearly for advanced endoscopy fellowship was one (range one to three). The median (range) procedural volumes for ERCP, endoscopic ultrasonography and endoscopic mucosal resection, respectively, were 325 (200 to 750), 250 (80 to 400) and 20 (10 to 63). None of the current programs offered training in endoscopic submucosal dissection or natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery.

CONCLUSION

Most accredited adult Canadian gastroenterology programs met the minimal procedural requirements recommended by the Canadian Association of Gastroenterology during core training. However, a more heterogeneous experience has been observed for advanced training. Additional studies would be required to validate and standardize evaluation tools used during gastroenterology curricula.

Patient-identified quality indicators for colonoscopy services

BACKGROUND

Current quality improvement tools for endoscopy services, such as the Global Rating Scale (GRS), emphasize the need for patient-centred care. However, there are no studies that have investigated patient expectations and/or perceptions of quality indicators in endoscopy services.

OBJECTIVES

To identify quality indicators for colonoscopy services from the patient perspective; to rate indicators of importance; to determine factors that influence indicator ratings; and to compare the identified indicators with those of the GRS.

METHODS

A two-phase mixed methods study was undertaken in Montreal (Quebec), Calgary (Alberta) and Hamilton (Ontario) among patients ≥18 years of age who spoke and read English or French. In phase 1, focus group participants identified quality indicators that were then used to construct a survey questionnaire. In phase 2, survey questionnaires, which were completed immediately after colonoscopy, prompted respondents to rate the 20 focus group-derived indicators according to their level of importance (low, medium, high) and to list up to nine additional items. Multiple logistic regression analysis was used to determine the factors that influenced focus group-derived indicator ratings. Patient-identified indicators were compared with those used in the GRS to identify novel indicators.

RESULTS

Three quality indicator themes were identified by 66 participants in 12 focus groups: communication, comfort and service environment. Of the 828 surveys distributed, 402 (48.6%) were returned and 65% of focus group-derived indicators were rated highly important by at least 55% of survey respondents. Indicator ratings differed according to age, sex, site and perceived colorectal cancer risk. Of the 29 patient-identified indicators, 17 (58.6%) were novel.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients identified 17 novel quality indicators, suggesting that patients and health professionals differ in their perspectives with respect to quality in colonoscopy services.

Quality audit of colonoscopy reports amongst patients screened or surveilled for colorectal neoplasia

AIM: To complete a quality audit using recently published criteria from the Quality Assurance Task Group of the National Colorectal Cancer Roundtable.

METHODS: Consecutive colonoscopy reports of patients at average/high risk screening, or with a prior colorectal neoplasia (CRN) by endoscopists who perform 11 000 procedures yearly, using a commercial computerized endoscopic report generator. A separate institutional database providing pathological results. Required documentation included patient demographics, history, procedure indications, technical descriptions, colonoscopy findings, interventions, unplanned events, follow-up plans, and pathology results. Reports abstraction employed a standardized glossary with 10% independent data validation. Sample size calculations determined the number of reports needed.

RESULTS: Two hundreds and fifty patients (63.2 ± 10.5 years, female: 42.8%, average risk: 38.5%, personal/family history of CRN: 43.3%/20.2%) were scoped in June 2009 by 8 gastroenterologists and 3 surgeons (mean practice: 17.1 ± 8.5 years). Procedural indication and informed consent were always documented. 14% provided a previous colonoscopy date (past polyp removal information in 25%, but insufficient in most to determine surveillance intervals appropriateness). Most procedural indicators were recorded (exam date: 98.4%, medications: 99.2%, difficulty level: 98.8%, prep quality: 99.6%). All reports noted extent of visualization (cecum: 94.4%, with landmarks noted in 78.8% - photodocumentation: 67.2%). No procedural times were recorded. One hundred and eleven had polyps (44.4%) with anatomic location noted in 99.1%, size in 65.8%, morphology in 62.2%; removal was by cold biopsy in 25.2% (cold snare: 18%, snare cautery: 31.5%, unrecorded: 20.7%), 84.7% were retrieved. Adenomas were noted in 24.8% (advanced adenomas: 7.6%, cancer: 0.4%) in this population with varying previous colonic investigations.

CONCLUSION: This audit reveals lacking reported items, justifying additional research to optimize quality of reporting.

The role of upper gastrointestinal endoscopy in treating postoperative complications in bariatric surgery

There are an estimated 500 million obese individuals worldwide. Currently, bariatric surgery has been shown to result in clinically significant weight loss. With increasing demand for bariatric surgery, endoscopic techniques used intra and postoperatively continue to evolve. Endoscopic evaluation of anastomotic integrity following RYGB allows for early detection of anastomotic leaks. Furthermore, endoscopy is a valuable tool to diagnose and treat RYGB postoperative surgical complications such as anastomotic leakage, hemorrhage and stricture formation. Early evidence suggests that endoscopic management of upper gastrointestinal hemorrhage following RYGB is effective. In addition, endoscopic balloon dilatation is able to effectively treat obstruction in the setting of gastrojejunal anastomotic strictures. With successful endoscopic management of these complications, bariatric patients may avoid more invasive surgical procedures.

Canadian Association of Gastroenterology consensus guidelines on safety and quality indicators in endoscopy

BACKGROUND

Increasing use of gastrointestinal endoscopy, particularly for colorectal cancer screening, and increasing emphasis on health care quality, highlight the need for clearly defined, evidence-based processes to support quality improvement in endoscopy.

OBJECTIVE

To identify processes and indicators of quality and safety relevant to high-quality endoscopy service delivery.

METHODS

A multidisciplinary group of 35 voting participants developed recommendation statements and performance indicators. Systematic literature searches generated 50 initial statements that were revised iteratively following a modified Delphi approach using a web-based evaluation and voting tool. Statement development and evidence evaluation followed the AGREE (Appraisal of Guidelines, REsearch and Evaluation) and GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) guidelines. At the consensus conference, participants voted anonymously on all statements using a 6-point scale. Subsequent web-based voting evaluated recommendations for specific, individual quality indicators, safety indicators and mandatory endoscopy reporting fields. Consensus was defined a priori as agreement by 80% of participants.

RESULTS

Consensus was reached on 23 recommendation statements addressing the following: ethics (statement 1: agreement 100%), facility standards and policies (statements 2 to 9: 90% to 100%), quality assurance (statements 10 to 13: 94% to 100%), training, education, competency and privileges (statements 14 to 19: 97% to 100%), endoscopy reporting standards (statements 20 and 21: 97% to 100%) and patient perceptions (statements 22 and 23: 100%). Additionally, 18 quality indicators (agreement 83% to 100%), 20 safety indicators (agreement 77% to 100%) and 23 recommended endoscopy-reporting elements (agreement 91% to 100%) were identified.

DISCUSSION

The consensus process identified a clear need for high-quality clinical and outcomes research to support quality improvement in the delivery of endoscopy services.

CONCLUSIONS

The guidelines support quality improvement in endoscopy by providing explicit recommendations on systematic monitoring, assessment and modification of endoscopy service delivery to yield benefits for all patients affected by the practice of gastrointestinal endoscopy.

Evaluation of colonoscopy skills - how well are we doing?

Colonoscopy is a complex task that requires the interplay of motor and cognitive skill sets. Traditional teaching of colonoscopy involves observation in an apprenticeship model. Individual trainees vary in their rate of their skill acquisition, and this trial-and-error method often results in frustration and anxiety for both the educator and the learner. Currently, there are no guidelines to determine the competence or proficiency of an individual for colonoscopy. Furthermore, there is a paucity of information regarding formal training curricula for colonoscopy skills acquisition. The present study investigated a formal and validated educational framework for colonoscopy teaching and compared it with the traditional apprenticeship model in first-year trainees.

Point-of-care, peer-comparator colonoscopy practice audit: The Canadian Association of Gastroenterology Quality Program--Endoscopy

BACKGROUND

Point-of-care practice audits allow documentation of procedural outcomes to support quality improvement in endoscopic practice.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate a colonoscopists' practice audit tool that provides point-of-care data collection and peer-comparator feedback.

METHODS

A prospective, observational colonoscopy practice audit was conducted in academic and community endoscopy units for unselected patients undergoing colonoscopy. Anonymized colonoscopist, patient and practice data were collected using touchscreen smartphones with automated data upload for data analysis and review by participants. The main outcome measures were the following colonoscopy quality indicators: colonoscope insertion and withdrawal times, bowel preparation quality, sedation, immediate complications and polypectomy, and biopsy rates.

RESULTS

Over a span of 16 months, 62 endoscopists reported on 1279 colonoscopy procedures. The mean cecal intubation rate was 94.9% (10th centile 84.2%). The mean withdrawal time was 8.8 min and, for nonpolypectomy colonoscopies, 41.9% of colonoscopists reported a mean withdrawal time of less than 6 min. Polypectomy was performed in 37% of colonoscopies. Independent predictors of polypectomy included the following: endoscopy unit type, patient age, interval since previous colonoscopy, bowel preparation quality, stable inflammatory bowel disease, previous colon polyps and withdrawal time. Withdrawal times of less than 6 min were associated with lower polyp removal rates (mean difference -11.3% [95% CI -2.8% to -19.9%]; P=0.01).

DISCUSSION

Cecal intubation rates exceeded 90% and polypectomy rates exceeded 30%, but withdrawal times were frequently shorter than recommended. There are marked practice variations consistent with previous observations.

CONCLUSION

Real-time, point-of-care practice audits with prompt, confidential access to outcome data provide a basis for targeted educational programs to improve quality in colonoscopy practice.

Rate and predictors of early/missed colorectal cancers after colonoscopy in Manitoba: a population-based study

OBJECTIVES

Many of the colorectal cancers (CRCs) diagnosed within 3 years after a colonoscopy are likely because of lesions missed on the initial colonoscopy. In this population-based study, we investigated the rate and predictors of CRCs diagnosed within 3 years of a colonoscopy.

METHODS

We identified individuals 50-80 years of age diagnosed with CRC between 1992 and 2008 from the provincewide Manitoba Cancer Registry. Performance of colonoscopy and history of co-morbidities was determined by linkage to the provincial universal health care insurance provider's physician billing claims and hospital discharges databases. CRCs diagnosed within 6 months of a colonoscopy were categorized as detected CRCs and those 6-36 months after a colonoscopy as early/missed CRCs. Logistic regression analysis was performed to identify the patient, endoscopist, colonoscopy, and CRC factors associated with early/missed CRCs.

RESULTS

Of the 4,883 CRCs included in the study, 388 (7.9%) were early/missed CRCs, with a range of 4.5% of rectum/rectosigmoid cancers in men to 14.4% of transverse colon/splenic flexure cancers in women. Independent risk factors associated with early/missed CRCs included prior colonoscopy, performance of index colonoscopy by family physicians, recent year of CRC diagnosis, and proximal site of CRC.

CONCLUSIONS

This study suggests that approximately 1 in 13 CRCs may be an early/missed CRC, diagnosed after an index colonoscopy in usual clinical practice. Women are more likely to have early/missed CRC. It is unclear if this relates to differences in procedure difficulty, bowel preparation issues, or tumor biology between men and women.

Is the 'driving test' a robust quality indicator of colonoscopy performance?

Colorectal cancer is a major cause of death in the western world and is currently the second commonest cause of death from malignant disease in the UK. Recently a "driving test" for colonoscopists wishing to take part in the National Health Service Bowel Cancer Screening Program has been introduced, with the aim of improving quality in colonoscopy. We describe the accreditation process and have reviewed the published evidence for its use. We compared this method of assessment to what occurs in other developed countries. To the authors' knowledge no other countries have similar methods of assessment of practicing colonoscopists, and instead use critical evaluation of key quality criteria. The UK appears to have one of the most rigorous accreditation processes, although this still has flaws. The published evidence suggests that the written part of the accreditation is not a good discriminating test and it needs to be improved or abandoned. Further work is needed on the best methods of assessing polypectomy skills. Rigorous systems need to be in place for the colonoscopist who fails the assessment.

Report from the Canadian Association of Gastroenterology Board

On behalf of the Canadian Association of Gastroenterology (CAG) Board, I am pleased to provide you with this report summarizing the activities and directions of the organization on behalf of its members. It is an honour to participate in the affairs of the organization and interact with groups and individuals from across the country dedicated to advancing science and care in the field of digestive health and disease. This is a challenging time in medicine, and the organization has been working hard to enhance the benefits, programs and services available to its members. The goal is to provide the highest level of services possible to meet your needs.

Colonoscopy and its complications across a Canadian regional health authority

BACKGROUND

Defining the complication rate of endoscopy performed across an entire city will capture usual as opposed to referral center data.

OBJECTIVE

Our purpose was to evaluate the current practice of colonoscopy and complications associated with lower GI endoscopy in usual clinical practice.

DESIGN

All admissions within 30 days of an outpatient lower GI endoscopy at any of the 6 adult-care Winnipeg hospitals were identified. This includes endoscopy for both complex and routine patients. A chart audit of all cases with potential complications was performed.

RESULTS

A total of 24,509 outpatient lower GI endoscopies for adults were performed at the 6 hospitals over the 2 study years (April 1, 2004, to March 31, 2006). There were 303 admissions with potential complications. The colonoscopy completion rate was 65% (72% for gastroenterologists vs 59% for general surgeons, P < .005). Quality of bowel preparation and nature of polyps were often not documented. The overall rate of complications was 2.9/1000 procedures; the perforation rate after polypectomy was 1.8/1000; and the postpolypectomy bleeding rate was 6.4/1000. Most (67%) complications were recognized after discharge for the index procedure. The complication rate was highest for the endoscopists performing fewer than 200 procedures per year (5.4/1000 vs 2.7/1000 for the rest, P = .02, relative risk 2 [95% CI, 1.1-3.7]).

LIMITATIONS

Chart audit was limited to cases requiring admission within 30 days of the index procedure.

CONCLUSIONS

The overall complication rate after lower GI endoscopy in usual clinical practice in Winnipeg is comparable to that previously reported. A higher complication rate after endoscopy by low-volume endoscopists needs to be further evaluated. The reporting of endoscopy must be standardized to enhance outcomes interpretation.