Revision of Quality Indicators for the Endoscopy Quality Improvement Program of the National Cancer Screening Program in Korea

Association between Endoscopist Volume and Interval Cancers after Colonoscopy: Results from the National Colorectal Cancer Screening Program in Korea

PURPOSE

The rate of interval colorectal cancer (iCRC) is now accepted as a key performance indicator of organized colorectal cancer (CRC) screening programs. We aimed to examine the association between endoscopist volumes and the rate of iCRC among individuals with a positive fecal immunochemical test (FIT) within a nationwide population-based CRC screening program.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Individuals aged ≥ 50 years who underwent colonoscopy after a positive FIT from January 1, 2019 until December 31, 2020 in the Korean National Cancer Screening Program (KNCSP) were enrolled. We converted the data into per-endoscopist screening results, calculated the iCRC rates per endoscopist, and compared them to the previous year's annual volume that was divided into five groups (V1, 1-9; V2, 10-29; V3, 30-59; V4, 60-119; V5, ≥ 120).

RESULTS

A total of 10,412 endoscopists performed 216,907 colonoscopies. Overall, the average rate of iCRC per endoscopist was 8.46 per 1,000 examinations. Compared with the group with the highest volume (V5 group), the rate of iCRC was 2.21 times higher in the V1 group. Similar trends were observed in the other groups (V2: relative risks [RR], 2.15; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.57 to 2.94; V3: RR, 1.56; 95% CI, 1.15 to 2.13; V4: RR, 1.18; 95% CI, 0.83 to 1.67).

CONCLUSION

The findings emphasize that endoscopists with lower procedure volumes have higher risks of interval cancer being missed or undetected. To maximize the preventative impact of colonoscopy for CRC, this issue should be addressed by monitoring endoscopist volumes and variations in performances.

Current status of quality control in screening esophagogastroduodenoscopy and the emerging role of artificial intelligence

Esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) screening is being implemented in countries with a high incidence of upper gastrointestinal (UGI) cancer. High-quality EGD screening ensures the yield of early diagnosis and prevents suffering from advanced UGI cancer and minimal operational-related discomfort. However, performance varied dramatically among endoscopists, and quality control for EGD screening remains suboptimal. Guidelines have recommended potential measures for endoscopy quality improvement and research has been conducted for evidence. Moreover, artificial intelligence offers a promising solution for computer-aided diagnosis and quality control during EGD examinations. In this review, we summarized the key points for quality assurance in EGD screening based on current guidelines and evidence. We also outline the latest evidence, limitations, and future prospects of the emerging role of artificial intelligence in EGD quality control, aiming to provide a foundation for improving the quality of EGD screening.

Quality indicators in the endoscopic detection of gastric cancer

Gastroscopy is the reference standard for the diagnosis of gastric cancer, but it is operator-dependent and associated with missed gastric cancer. The proliferation of gastroscopic examinations, increasingly for the screening and detection of subtle premalignant lesions, has motivated scrutiny of quality in gastroscopy. The concept of a high-quality endoscopic examination for the detection of superficial gastric neoplasia has been defined by expert guidelines to improve mucosal visualization, engender a systematic examination process and detect superficial neoplasia. This review discusses the evidence supporting the components of a high-quality diagnostic gastroscopic examination in relation to the detection of gastric cancer, and their potential role as procedural quality indicators to drive a structured improvement in clinically meaningful outcomes.

Korean Guidelines for Postpolypectomy Colonoscopic Surveillance: 2022 revised edition

Colonoscopic polypectomy is effective in decreasing the incidence and mortality of colorectal cancer (CRC). Premalignant polyps discovered during colonoscopy are associated with the risk of metachronous advanced neoplasia. Postpolypectomy surveillance is the most important method for managing advanced metachronous neoplasia. A more efficient and evidence-based guideline for postpolypectomy surveillance is required because of the limited medical resources and concerns regarding colonoscopy complications. In these consensus guidelines, an analytic approach was used to address all reliable evidence to interpret the predictors of CRC or advanced neoplasia during surveillance colonoscopy. The key recommendations state that the high-risk findings for metachronous CRC following polypectomy are as follows: adenoma ≥10 mm in size; 3 to 5 (or more) adenomas; tubulovillous or villous adenoma; adenoma containing high-grade dysplasia; traditional serrated adenoma; sessile serrated lesion containing any grade of dysplasia; serrated polyp of at least 10 mm in size; and 3 to 5 (or more) sessile serrated lesions. More studies are needed to fully comprehend the patients who are most likely to benefit from surveillance colonoscopy and the ideal surveillance interval to prevent metachronous CRC.

Simulator-based training method in gastrointestinal endoscopy training and currently available simulators

The apprenticeship-based training method (ABTM) is highly effective for gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopic training. However, the conventional ABTM has significant issues. Although many supplementary training methods (TMs) have been developed and utilized, they cannot entirely replace the ABTM, which remains the major TM strategy. Currently, new TM construction is crucial and necessary due to financial constraints, difficulty of obtaining sufficient training time due to patient safety-related regulations, and catastrophic damage caused by disasters such as the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic. The simulator-based TM (SBTM) is widely accepted as an alternative to the ABTM, owing to the SBTM's advantages. Since the 1960s, many GI endoscopy training simulators have been developed and numerous studies have been published on their effectiveness. While previous studies have focused on the simulator's validity, this review focused on the accessibility of simulators that were introduced by the end of 2021. Although the current SBTM is effective in GI endoscopic education, extensive improvements are needed to replace the ABTM. Incorporating simulator-incorporated TMs into an improved ABTM is an attempt to overcome the incompleteness of the current SBTM. Until a new simulator is developed to replace the ABTM, it is desirable to operate a simulator-integrated and well-coordinated TM that is suitable for each country and institution.

Reduced detection rate of artificial intelligence in images obtained from untrained endoscope models and improvement using domain adaptation algorithm

A training dataset that is limited to a specific endoscope model can overfit artificial intelligence (AI) to its unique image characteristics. The performance of the AI may degrade in images of different endoscope model. The domain adaptation algorithm, i.e., the cycle-consistent adversarial network (cycleGAN), can transform the image characteristics into AI-friendly styles. We attempted to confirm the performance degradation of AIs in images of various endoscope models and aimed to improve them using cycleGAN transformation. Two AI models were developed from data of esophagogastroduodenoscopies collected retrospectively over 5 years: one for identifying the endoscope models, Olympus CV-260SL, CV-290 (Olympus, Tokyo, Japan), and PENTAX EPK-i (PENTAX Medical, Tokyo, Japan), and the other for recognizing the esophagogastric junction (EGJ). The AIs were trained using 45,683 standardized images from 1,498 cases and validated on 624 separate cases. Between the two endoscope manufacturers, there was a difference in image characteristics that could be distinguished without error by AI. The accuracy of the AI in recognizing gastroesophageal junction was >0.979 in the same endoscope-examined validation dataset as the training dataset. However, they deteriorated in datasets from different endoscopes. Cycle-consistent adversarial network can successfully convert image characteristics to ameliorate the AI performance. The improvements were statistically significant and greater in datasets from different endoscope manufacturers [original → AI-trained style, increased area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve, P-value: CV-260SL → CV-290, 0.0056, P = 0.0106; CV-260SL → EPK-i, 0.0182, P = 0.0158; CV-290 → CV-260SL, 0.0134, P < 0.0001; CV-290 → EPK-i, 0.0299, P = 0.0001; EPK-i → CV-260SL, 0.0215, P = 0.0024; and EPK-i → CV-290, 0.0616, P < 0.0001]. In conclusion, cycleGAN can transform the diverse image characteristics of endoscope models into an AI-trained style to improve the detection performance of AI.

Korean guidelines for postpolypectomy colonoscopic surveillance: 2022 revised edition

Colonoscopic polypectomy is effective in decreasing the incidence and mortality of colorectal cancer (CRC). Premalignant polyps discovered during colonoscopy are associated with the risk of metachronous advanced neoplasia. Postpolypectomy surveillance is the most important method for the management of advanced metachronous neoplasia. A more efficient and evidence-based guideline for postpolypectomy surveillance is required because of limited medical resources and concerns regarding colonoscopy complications. In these consensus guidelines, an analytic approach was used to address all reliable evidence to interpret the predictors of CRC or advanced neoplasia during surveillance colonoscopy. The key recommendations state that the high-risk findings for metachronous CRC following polypectomy are as follows: (1) adenoma ≥10 mm in size; (2) 3 to 5 (or more) adenomas; (3) tubulovillous or villous adenoma; (4) adenoma containing high-grade dysplasia; (5) traditional serrated adenoma; (6) sessile serrated lesion (SSL) containing any grade of dysplasia; (7) serrated polyp of at least 10 mm in size; and (8) 3 to 5 (or more) SSLs. More studies are needed to fully comprehend the patients most likely to benefit from surveillance colonoscopy and the ideal surveillance interval to prevent metachronous CRC.

A scoping review on population-centered indicators for cancer care continuum

Purpose

The purpose of this study was to develop prioritized cancer indicators and measure the population-based monitoring of the entire life cycle of cancer care, guiding the improvement of care delivery systems.

Methods

Scoping review was performed based on the Joanna Briggs Institute's methodology. Electronic databases were searched in PubMed, Cochrane Library, EMBASE, Ovid Medline, RISS, KISS, and KoreaMed. The searches were limited to articles published in English between 2010 and 2020. No restrictions were applied regarding the publication status or country of origin, and all study designs were included. Gray literature was used to broaden the search's scope, identify new recommendations, need to be in connect with subject experts, and explore pertinent websites. The process and selected indicators were analyzed based on their frequency distribution and percentage.

Results

The literature search yielded 6,202 works. In addition, national and international cancer guidelines were obtained from official database reports. A total of 35 articles and 20 reports regarding cancer indicators were finally selected for data synthesis. Based on them, 254 core sets of cancer indicators were identified. The selected indicators were classified into six domains based on the continuum of cancer care and survivor's life cycle, namely, primary prevention (61, 24.0%), secondary prevention (46, 18.1%), treatment (85, 33.5%), quality of care (33, 13.0%), survivor management (33, 13.0%), and end-of-life care (14, 5.5%).

Conclusion

There is a growing interest in developing specific areas of cancer care. Cancer indicators can help organizations, care providers, and patients strive for optimal care outcomes. The identified indicators could guide future innovations by identifying weaknesses in cancer prevention and management.

[Korean Guidelines for Postpolypectomy Colonoscopic Surveillance: 2022 Revised Edition]

Colonoscopic polypectomy is effective in decreasing the incidence and mortality of colorectal cancer (CRC). Premalignant polyps discovered during colonoscopy are associated with the risk of metachronous advanced neoplasia. Postpolypectomy surveillance is the most important method for managing advanced metachronous neoplasia. A more efficient and evidence-based guideline for postpolypectomy surveillance is required because of the limited medical resources and concerns regarding colonoscopy complications. In these consensus guidelines, an analytic approach was used to address all reliable evidence to interpret the predictors of CRC or advanced neoplasia during surveillance colonoscopy. The key recommendations state that the high-risk findings for metachronous CRC following polypectomy are as follows: 1) adenoma ≥10 mm in size; 2) 3-5 (or more) adenomas; 3) tubulovillous or villous adenoma; 4) adenoma containing high-grade dysplasia; 5) traditional serrated adenoma; 6) sessile serrated lesion (SSL) containing any grade of dysplasia; 7) serrated polyp of at least 10 mm in size; and 8) 3-5 (or more) SSLs. More studies are needed to fully comprehend the patients who are most likely to benefit from surveillance colonoscopy and the ideal surveillance interval to prevent metachronous CRC.

Interval Advanced Gastric Cancer After Negative Endoscopy

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) is effective in reducing gastric cancer mortality through detection of early-stage cancer in areas with a high prevalence of gastric cancer. Although the risk of post-endoscopy advanced gastric cancer (AGC) is low, interval AGC remains a concern. We investigated the characteristics and predictors of interval AGC after negative EGD.

METHODS

We included 1257 patients with gastric cancer within 6 to 36 months of a "cancer-negative" index EGD between 2005 and 2021 at a tertiary university hospital in South Korea. Observation time on the index EGD was used as a quality indicator. We compared the clinical and endoscopic characteristics and quality indicators between interval AGC and screen-detected early gastric cancer (EGC).

RESULTS

Within 6 to 36 months of negative EGD, 102 AGCs (8.1%) and 1155 EGCs (91.9%) were identified. The percentage of patients with shorter observation time (<3 minutes) in the index EGD was higher in the interval AGC group than in the detected EGC group (P = .002). A multivariable analysis comparing screen-detected EGD and interval AGC was adjusted for age, sex, family history of gastric cancer, H. pylori status, endoscopic findings, and endoscopy-related factors including gastric observation time and interval time. A shorter observation time (<3 minutes) (odds ratio, 2.27; 95% confidence interval, 1.20-4.30), and interval time >2 years (odds ratio, 1.84; 95% confidence interval, 1.04-3.24) were associated with an increased risk of interval AGC.

CONCLUSION

A shorter observation time during index EGD is an important predictor of interval AGC. Further, withdrawal time longer than 3 minutes may be a quality indicator for screening EGD.

Utilization and quality assessment of digestive endoscopy in China: results from 5-year consecutive nationwide surveys

BACKGROUND

Worldwide, the volume and availability of digestive endoscopy have undergone dramatic development in recent years, with increasing attention on quality assurance. We investigated the utilization and quality of digestive endoscopy in China from 2015 to 2019 and developed a quantitative quality evaluation tool for medical institutions.

METHODS

We invited all tertiary/secondary hospitals in Chinese mainland to participate in the survey annually. The questionnaires included the personnel, annual volume, and quality indicators of endoscopy. An endoscopy quality index (EQI) was developed based on recorded quality indicators using principal component analysis to determine the relative weight.

RESULTS

From 2015 to 2019, 806, 1412, 2644, 2468, and 2541 hospitals were respectively enrolled in this study. The average annual volume of endoscopy increased from 12,445 to 16,206 (1.30-fold) and from 2938 to 4255 (1.45-fold) in tertiary and secondary hospitals, respectively. The most obvious growth was observed in diagnostic colonoscopy (1.44-fold for all hospitals after standardization). The proportion of early cancer among all esophageal and gastric cancers during diagnostic esophagogastroduodenoscopy increased from 12.3% (55,210/448,861) to 17.7% (85,429/482,647) and from 11.4% (69,411/608,866) to 16.9% (107,192/634,235), respectively. The adenoma detection rate of diagnostic colonoscopy increased from 14.9% (2,118,123/14,215,592) to 19.3% (3,943,203/20,431,104). The EQI model included 12 quality indicators, incorporating 64.9% (7.792/12) of the total variance into one comprehensive index. According to the EQI measurements, the quality of endoscopy was higher in tertiary hospitals and hospitals in developed areas with higher volume or more endoscopists than that in other hospitals.

CONCLUSIONS

Digestive endoscopy in China has developed considerably in recent years in terms of both volume and quality. The EQI is a promising tool to quantify the quality of endoscopy at different hospitals.

Quality indicators in esophagogastroduodenoscopy

Esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) has been used to diagnose a wide variety of upper gastrointestinal diseases. In particular, EGD is used to screen high-risk subjects of gastric cancer. Quality control of EGD is important because the diagnostic rate is examiner-dependent. However, there is still no representative quality indicator that can be uniformly applied in EGD. There has been growing awareness of the importance of quality control in improving EGD performance. Therefore, we aimed to review the available and emerging quality indicators for diagnostic EGD.

Association of Regular Endoscopic Screening with Interval Gastric Cancer Incidence in the National Cancer Screening Program

Although regular endoscopic screening may help in early detection of gastric cancer, interval cancer remains a problem in the screening program. This study evaluated the association between regular endoscopic screening and interval cancer detection in the Korean National Cancer Screening Program (KNCSP). We defined three groups (regularly, irregularly, and not screened) according to the screening interval, and the trends in the interval cancer rate (ICR) between the groups were tested using the Cochran-Armitage test. The influence of regular endoscopic screening on the risk of interval cancer was evaluated using multivariable logistic regression. Among the 11,642,410 participants who underwent endoscopy, the overall ICR was 0.36 per 1000 negative screenings. The ICR of the not screened group (0.41) was the highest among the three groups and the risk of interval cancer in this group was 1.68 times higher (p < 0.001) than that in the regularly screened group. Women in their 40s who had regular screening with no history of intestinal metaplasia and gastric polyps would have the lowest probability of having interval cancer (0.005%). Regular participation in endoscopic screening programs for reducing the risk of interval cancer may help to improve the quality of screening programs.

The Influence of Face Shields on the Quality of Colonoscopy in the Era of the COVID-19 Pandemic

Background/Aims

The worldwide coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic has led endoscopists to use personal protective equipment (PPE) for infection prevention. This study aimed to investigate whether wearing a face shield as PPE affects the quality of colonoscopy.

Methods

We reviewed the medical records and colonoscopy findings of patients who underwent colonoscopies at Asan Medical Center, Korea from March 10 to May 31, 2020. The colonoscopies in this study were performed by five gastroenterology fellows and four expert endoscopists. We compared colonoscopy quality indicators, such as withdrawal time, adenoma detection rate (ADR), mean number of adenomas per colonoscopy (APC), polypectomy time, and polypectomy adverse events, both before and after face shields were added as PPE on April 13, 2020.

Results

Of the 1,344 colonoscopies analyzed, 715 and 629 were performed before and after the introduction of face shields, respectively. The median withdrawal time was similar between the face shield and no-face shield groups (8.72 minutes vs 8.68 minutes, p=0.816), as was the ADR (41.5% vs 39.8%, p=0.605) and APC (0.72 vs 0.77, p=0.510). Polypectomy-associated quality indicators, such as polypectomy time and polypectomy adverse events were also not different between the groups. Quality indicators were not different between the face shield and no-face shield groups of gastroenterology fellows, or of expert endoscopists.

Conclusions

Colonoscopy performance was not unfavorably affected by the use of a face shield. PPE, including face shields, can be recommended without a concern about colonoscopy quality deterioration.

Colonoscopy quality in community hospitals and nonhospital facilities in Korea

BACKGROUND/AIMS

High-quality colonoscopy is essential to reduce colorectal cancer-related deaths. Little is known about colonoscopy quality in non-academic practice settings. We aimed to evaluate the quality of colonoscopies performed in community hospitals and nonhospital facilities.

METHODS

Colonoscopy data were collected from patients referred to six tertiary care centers after receiving colonoscopies at community hospitals and nonhospital facilities. Based on their photographs, we measured quality indicators including cecal intubation rate, withdrawal time, adequacy of bowel preparation, and number of polyps.

RESULTS

Data from a total of 1,064 colonoscopies were analyzed. The overall cecal intubation rate was 93.1%. The median withdrawal time was 8.3 minutes, but 31.3% of colonoscopies were withdrawn within 6 minutes. Community hospitals had longer withdrawal time and more polyps than nonhospital facilities (median withdrawal time: 9.9 minutes vs. 7.5 minutes, p < 0.001; mean number of polyps: 3.1 vs. 2.3, p = 0.001). Board-certified endoscopists had a higher rate of cecal intubation than non-board-certified endoscopists (93.2% vs. 85.2%, p = 0.006). A total of 819 follow-up colonoscopies were performed at referral centers with a median interval of 28 days. In total, 2,546 polyps were detected at baseline, and 1,088 were newly identified (polyp miss rate, 29.9%). Multivariable analysis revealed that older age (odds ratio [OR], 1.032; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.020 to 1.044) and male sex (OR, 1.719; 95% CI, 1.281 to 2.308) were associated with increased risk of missed polyps.

CONCLUSION

The quality of colonoscopies performed in community hospitals and nonhospital facilities was suboptimal. Systematic reporting, auditing, and feedback are needed for quality improvement.

Efficacy and Patient Tolerability Profiles of Probiotic Solution with Bisacodyl Versus Conventional Cleansing Solution for Bowel Preparation: A Prospective, Randomized, Controlled Trial

Although adequate bowel preparation is essential in screening colonoscopy, patient intolerability to bowel cleansing agents is problematic. Recently, a probiotic mixture solution with bisacodyl emerged to improve patient tolerability. We investigated the efficacy, safety, and patient tolerability profiles of probiotics with bisacodyl versus conventional polyethylene glycol (PEG) solution for bowel preparation for screening colonoscopies in healthy patients in this prospective, randomized, case-control study. In total, 385 volunteers were randomly assigned to receive 2 L of water + 200 mL of probiotic solution (case group, n = 195) or 4 L of PEG solution (control group, n = 190). The efficacy of the bowel cleansing was evaluated using the Ottawa scale system, polyp detection rate, and adenoma detection rate, and the patient tolerability profiles were assessed using a questionnaire. The demographics were not significantly different between groups. When the Ottawa score for each bowel segment was stratified into an adequate vs. inadequate level (Ottawa score ≤ 3 vs. >3), there were no statistical differences between groups in each segment of the colon. There were no significant differences in the polyp and adenoma detection rates between groups (38.42% vs. 32.42, p = 0.30; 25.79% vs. 18.97%, p = 0.11). The case group showed significantly fewer events than the control group, especially nausea, vomiting, and abdominal bloating events. Regarding the overall satisfaction grade, the case group reported significantly more “average” scores (95% vs. 44%, p < 0.001) and were more willing to use the same agents again (90.26% vs. 61.85%, p < 0.001). As patient compliance with bowel preparation agents is associated with an adequate level of bowel cleansing, a probiotic solution with bisacodyl might be a new bowel preparation candidate, especially in patients who show a poor compliance with conventional bowel preparation agents.

Impacts of age and sedation on cardiocerebrovascular adverse events after diagnostic GI endoscopy: a nationwide population-based study

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Data are limited regarding the impact of age and sedation on cardiocerebrovascular disease (CCD) adverse events after GI endoscopy. We investigated the incidence of and risk factors for CCD adverse events after diagnostic GI endoscopy and the impact of age and sedation on these unfavorable outcomes.

METHODS

In this nationwide population-based study, the incidence of and risk factors for newly diagnosed CCD within 14 days after diagnostic endoscopy were analyzed using Health Insurance Review and Assessment Service data from January to December 2015.

RESULTS

Among 1,943,150 subjects, CCD adverse events occurred in approximately 2.23% within 14 days after endoscopy. According to the performance of sedation during endoscopy (60.1% nonsedation vs 39.9% sedation, midazolam alone [96.4%]), the incidence rates of CCD adverse events (per 10,000 persons) were 275.8 versus 302.8 for EGD, 116.9 versus 143.8 for colonoscopy, and 230.4 versus 243.2 for EGD + colonoscopy, respectively. On multivariate analysis, older age (70-99 years) and sedation were independent risk factors for CCD adverse events. Regarding CCD risk stratified by age and sedation, older age had a significant impact on CCD adverse events in individuals who underwent EGD only or EGD + colonoscopy, but sedation did not. However, both older age and sedation had considerable influence on CCD adverse events in individuals who underwent colonoscopy only. Sedation during endoscopy was significantly associated with minor but not major CCD adverse events. CCD adverse events were significantly higher for inpatients.

CONCLUSION

CCD adverse events after diagnostic endoscopy were significantly frequent in individuals with older age (70-99 years) and/or sedation during endoscopy. Stratification by age and sedation shows that the impact of these 2 factors on CCD adverse events differs according to endoscopy type.

Quality Indicators and Outcome Measures of Endoscopy in the National Cancer Screening Program

PURPOSE

Quality indicators of the National Endoscopy Quality Improvement Program (NEQIP) and outcome measures of endoscopy in the National Cancer Screening Program (NCSP) in Korea are not clear. We evaluated the quality indicators of the revised NEQIP and outcome measures of endoscopy at different types of healthcare facilities participating in the NCSP.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This study was conducted between March and August 2018 in primary, secondary, and tertiary healthcare facilities that perform endoscopy as a part of the NCSP. Representative endoscopists completed a questionnaire for quality indicators of the NEQIP and provided data on outcome measures for endoscopy.

RESULTS

Quality indicators of the NEQIP were mostly acceptable. However, the quality indicators for annual volume of esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) and colonoscopy, training for endoscopy quality improvement by endoscopy nursing staff, colonoscopy reports, documentation of pathologic lesions, quality of endoscopy reprocessing areas, and completion of endoscopy reprocessing education programs were suboptimal. For outcome measures of EGD, the number of photo-documentations and total procedure time were higher at tertiary healthcare facilities than at other facilities (p<0.001 and p=0.023, respectively). For the outcome measures of colonoscopy, colonoscopy completion rate and waiting times for colonoscopy were significantly higher at tertiary healthcare facilities than at other facilities (both p<0.001).

CONCLUSION

Outcome measures of endoscopy should be included as quality indicators of NCSP. However, universal outcome measures for all types of healthcare facilities should be established because performance levels of some outcome measures differ among individual healthcare facility types.

Updates on the Facilities, Procedures, and Performance of the Accredited Endoscopy Unit

Endoscopic quality indicators can be classified into three categories, namely facilities and equipment, endoscopic procedures, and outcome measures. In 2019, the Korean Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy updated the accreditation of qualified endoscopy unit assessment items for these quality indicators to establish competence and define areas of continuous quality improvement.

Here, we presented the updated program guidelines on the facilities, procedures, and performance of the accredited endoscopy unit. Many of these items have not yet been validated. However, the updated program will help in establishing competence and defining areas of continuous quality improvement in Korean endoscopic practice.

Endoscopy training in Korea

It is essential to maintain high-quality endoscopy given the increasing number of endoscopic screens performed in Korea. The training of fellows to perform endoscopies is challenging. The rapid development of endoscopic techniques and rising patient complexity increase the training pressures. At the end of training, all practitioners must perform endoscopy safely and effectively. Here, we examine the current status of endoscopy training in Korea. Although our system produces many competent endoscopists, there is room for improvement. Formal training programs should be developed to train the trainers. Specific assessment tools measuring performance and improving training are required. Changes should be made at all levels to improve our endoscopy training system.