Impact of Fellow Participation During Colonoscopy on Adenoma Detection Rates

BACKGROUND

An endoscopist's adenoma detection rate (ADR) is inversely related to interval colorectal cancer risk and cancer mortality. Previous studies evaluating the impact of gastroenterology fellow participation in colonoscopy on ADR have generated conflicting results.

AIMS

We aimed to determine the impact of fellow participation, duration of fellowship training, and physician sex on ADR and advanced ADR (AADR).

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed average-risk patients undergoing screening colonoscopy at Veterans Affairs New York Harbor Healthcare System Brooklyn Campus and Kings County Hospital Center. Review of colonoscopy and pathology reports were performed to obtain adenoma-specific details, including the presence of advanced adenoma and adenoma location (right vs. left colon).

RESULTS

There were 893 colonoscopies performed by attending only and 502 performed with fellow participation. Fellow participation improved overall ADR (44.6% vs. 35.4%, p < 0.001), right-sided ADR (34.1% vs. 25.2%, p < 0.001), and AADR (15.3% vs. 8.3%, p < 0.001); however, these findings were institution-specific. Year of fellowship training did not impact overall ADR or overall AADR, but did significantly improve right-sided AADR (p-value for trend 0.03). Female attending physicians were associated with increased ADR (47.1% vs. 37.0%, p = 0.0037). Fellow sex did not impact ADR.

CONCLUSIONS

Fellow participation in colonoscopy improved overall ADR and AADR, and female attending physicians were associated with improved ADR. Year of fellowship training did not impact overall ADR or AADR.

Stricter national standards are required for credentialing of endoscopic-retrograde-cholangiopancreatography in the United States

Endoscopic-retrograde-cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) is now a vital modality with primarily therapeutic and occasionally solely diagnostic utility for numerous biliary/pancreatic disorders. It has a significantly steeper learning curve than that for other standard gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopies, such as esophagogastroduodenoscopy or colonoscopy, due to greater technical difficulty and higher risk of complications. Yet, GI fellows have limited exposure to ERCP during standard-three-year-GI-fellowships because ERCP is much less frequently performed than esophagogastroduodenoscopy/colonoscopy. This led to adding an optional year of training in therapeutic endoscopy. Yet many graduates from standard three-year-fellowships without advanced training intensely pursue independent/unsupervised ERCP privileges despite inadequate numbers of performed ERCPs and unacceptably low rates of successful selective cannulation of desired (biliary or pancreatic) duct. Hospital credentialing committees have traditionally performed ERCP credentialing, but this practice has led to widespread flouting of recommended guidelines (e.g., planned privileging of applicant with 20% successful cannulation rate, or after performing only 7 ERCPs); and intense politicking of committee members by applicants, their practice groups, and potential competitors. Consequently, some gastroenterologists upon completing standard fellowships train and learn ERCP “on the job” during independent/unsupervised practice, which can result in bad outcomes: high rates of failed bile duct cannulation. This severe clinical problem is indicated by publication of ≥ 12 ERCP competency studies/guidelines during last 5 years. However, lack of mandatory, quantitative, ERCP credentialing criteria has permitted neglect of recommended guidelines. This work comprehensively reviews literature on ERCP credentialing; reviews rationales for proposed guidelines; reports problems with current system; and proposes novel criteria for competency. This work advocates for mandatory, national, written, minimum, quantitative, standards, including cognitive skills (possibly assessed by a nationwide examination), and technical skills, assessed by number performed (≥ 200-250 ERCPs), types of ERCPs, success rate (approximately ≥ 90% cannulation of desired duct), and letters of recommendation by program director/ERCP mentor. Mandatory criteria should ideally not be monitored by a hospital committee subjected to intense politicking by applicants, their employers, and sometimes even competitors, but an independent national entity, like the National Board of Medical Examiners/American Board of Internal Medicine.