Development of a national automated endoscopy database: The United Kingdom National Endoscopy Database (NED)

Restarting gastrointestinal endoscopy in the deceleration and early recovery phases of COVID-19 pandemic: Guidance from the British Society of Gastroenterology

Many non-emergency clinical services were suspended during COVID-19 pandemic peak. It is essential to develop a plan for restarting services following the peak. It is equally important to protect patients and staff and to use resources and personal protective equipment (PPE) efficiently. The British Society of Gastroenterology Endoscopy Committee and Quality Improvement Programme has produced guidance on how a restart can be safely delivered. Key recommendations include the following: all patients should have need for endoscopy assessed by senior clinicians and prioritised according to criteria we have outlined; once the need for endoscopy is confirmed, patients should undergo telephone screening for symptoms using systematic questionnaires; all outpatients should undergo RT-PCR testing for COVID-19 virus 1-3 days prior to endoscopy; and PPE should be determined by patient risk stratification, the nature of the procedure and the results of testing. While this guidance is tailored to endoscopy services, it could be adapted for any interventional medical discipline.

Impact of a simulation-based induction programme in gastroscopy on trainee outcomes and learning curves

BACKGROUND

Pre-clinical simulation-based training (SBT) in endoscopy has been shown to augment trainee performance in the short-term, but longer-term data are lacking.

AIM

To assess the impact of a two-day gastroscopy induction course combining theory and SBT (Structured PRogramme of INduction and Training – SPRINT) on trainee outcomes over a 16-mo period.

METHODS

This prospective case-control study compared outcomes between novice SPRINT attendees and controls matched from a United Kingdom training database. Study outcomes comprised: (1) Unassisted D2 intubation rates; (2) Procedural discomfort scores; (3) Sedation practice; (4) Time to 200 procedures; and (5) Time to certification.

RESULTS

Total 15 cases and 24 controls were included, with mean procedure counts of 10 and 3 (P = 0.739) pre-SPRINT. Post-SPRINT, no significant differences between the groups were detected in long-term D2 intubation rates (P = 0.332) or discomfort scores (P = 0.090). However, the cases had a significantly higher rate of unsedated procedures than controls post-SPRINT (58% vs 44%, P = 0.018), which was maintained over the subsequent 200 procedures. Cases tended to perform procedures at a greater frequency than controls in the post-SPRINT period (median: 16.2 vs 13.8 per mo, P = 0.051), resulting in a significantly greater proportion of cases achieving gastroscopy certification by the end of follow up (75% vs 36%, P = 0.017).

CONCLUSION

In this pilot study, attendees of the SPRINT cohort tended to perform more procedures and achieved gastroscopy certification earlier than controls. These data support the role for wider evaluation of pre-clinical induction involving SBT.

Colonoscopy Direct Observation of Procedural Skills Assessment Tool for Evaluating Competency Development During Training

INTRODUCTION

Formative colonoscopy direct observation of procedural skills (DOPS) assessments were updated in 2016 and incorporated into UK training but lack validity evidence. We aimed to appraise the validity of DOPS assessments, benchmark performance, and evaluate competency development during training in diagnostic colonoscopy.

METHODS

This prospective national study identified colonoscopy DOPS submitted over an 18-month period to the UK training e-portfolio. Generalizability analyses were conducted to evaluate internal structure validity and reliability. Benchmarking was performed using receiver operator characteristic analyses. Learning curves for DOPS items and domains were studied, and multivariable analyses were performed to identify predictors of DOPS competency.

RESULTS

Across 279 training units, 10,749 DOPS submitted for 1,199 trainees were analyzed. The acceptable reliability threshold (G > 0.70) was achieved with 3 assessors performing 2 DOPS each. DOPS competency rates correlated with the unassisted caecal intubation rate (rho 0.404, P < 0.001). Demonstrating competency in 90% of assessed items provided optimal sensitivity (90.2%) and specificity (87.2%) for benchmarking overall DOPS competence. This threshold was attained in the following order: "preprocedure" (50-99 procedures), "endoscopic nontechnical skills" and "postprocedure" (150-199), "management" (200-249), and "procedure" (250-299) domain. At item level, competency in "proactive problem solving" (rho 0.787) and "loop management" (rho 0.780) correlated strongest with the overall DOPS rating (P < 0.001) and was the last to develop. Lifetime procedure count, DOPS count, trainer specialty, easier case difficulty, and higher cecal intubation rate were significant multivariable predictors of DOPS competence.

DISCUSSION

This study establishes milestones for competency acquisition during colonoscopy training and provides novel validity and reliability evidence to support colonoscopy DOPS as a competency assessment tool.

Training in endotherapy for acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding: a UK-wide gastroenterology trainee survey

INTRODUCTION

Competence in endoscopic haemostasis for acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding (AUGIB) is typically expected upon completion of gastroenterology training. However, training in haemostasis is currently variable without a structured training pathway. We conducted a national gastroenterology trainee survey on haemostasis exposure and on attitudes and barriers to training.

METHODS

A 24-item electronic survey was distributed to UK gastroenterology trainees covering the following domains: demographics, training setup, attitudes and barriers, confidence in managing AUGIB independently and exposure to individual haemostatic modalities (supervised and independent). Responses were analysed by region and training grade to assess potential variation in training.

RESULTS

A total of 181 trainees completed the questionnaire (response rate 33.5%). There was significant variation in AUGIB training setup across the UK (p<0.001), with 22.7% of trainees declaring no access to structured or ad hoc training. 31.5% expressed confidence in managing AUGIB independently; this varied by trainee grade (0% of first-year specialty trainees (ST3s) to 60.7% of final-years (ST7s)) and by training setup (p=0.001). ST7 trainees reported lack of experience with independently applying glue (86%), Hemospray (54%), heater probe (36%) and variceal banding (36%). Overall, 88% of trainees desired additional haemostasis training and 89% indicated support for a national certification process to ensure competence in AUGIB.

CONCLUSION

AUGIB training in the UK is variable. The majority of gastroenterology trainees lacked confidence in haemostasis management and desired additional training. Training provision should be urgently reviewed to ensure that trainees receive adequate haemostasis exposure and are competent by completion of training.

Variation in exposure to endoscopic haemostasis for acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding during UK gastroenterology training

INTRODUCTION

Gastroenterologists are typically expected to be competent in endoscopic haemostasis for acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding (AUGIB), with the Certificate of Completion of Training (CCT) often heralding the onset of participation in on-call AUGIB rotas. We analysed the volume of haemostasis experience recorded by gastroenterology CCT holders on the Joint Advisory Group on Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Training System (JETS) e-portfolio, the UK electronic portfolio for endoscopy, and assessed for variations in exposure to haemostasis.

METHODS

UK gastroenterologists awarded CCT between April 2014 and April 2017 were retrospectively identified from the specialist register. Credentials were cross-referenced with JETS to retrieve AUGIB haemostasis procedures prior to CCT. Procedures were collated according to variceal versus non-variceal therapies and compared across training deaneries.

RESULTS

Over the 3-year study period, 241 gastroenterologists were awarded CCT. 232 JETS e-portfolio users were included for analysis. In total, 12 932 haemostasis procedures were recorded, corresponding to a median of 42 (IQR 21-71) per gastroenterologist. Exposure to non-variceal modalities (median 28, IQR 15-52) was more frequent than variceal therapies (median 11, IQR 5-22; p<0.001). By procedure, adrenaline injection (median 12, IQR 6-23) and variceal band ligation (median 10, IQR 5-20) were most commonly recorded, whereas sclerotherapy experience was rare (median 0, IQR 0-1). Exposure to haemostasis did not differ by year of CCT (p=0.130) but varied significantly by deanery (p<0.001), with median procedures ranging from 20-126.

CONCLUSION

Exposure to AUGIB haemostasis during UK gastroenterology training varied across deaneries and procedural modalities which should prompt urgent locoregional review of access and delivery of training. Endoscopy departments should ensure the availability of supportive provisions in haemostasis (i.e. training/upskilling, supervision, mentorship) during the early post-CCT period.

Factors associated with oesophagogastric cancers missed by gastroscopy: a case-control study

INTRODUCTION

There is increasing demand for gastroscopy in the United Kingdom. In around 10% of patients, gastroscopy is presumed to have missed oesophagogastric (OG) cancer prior to diagnosis. We examine patient, endoscopist and service level factors that may affect rates of missed OG cancers.

METHODS

Gastroscopies presumed to have missed OG cancers performed up to 3 years prior to diagnosis were identified over 6 years in Sheffield, UK. Factors related to the patient, endoscopist and endoscopy lists were examined in a case-control study. Procedures which missed cancer were compared with two procedure controls: the procedures which subsequently diagnosed cancer in the same patient, and second, endoscopist matched procedures diagnostic of small benign focal lesions.

RESULTS

We identified 48 (7.7%) cases of missed OG cancer. Endoscopy lists on which OG cancer diagnoses were missed contained a greater number of total procedures compared with lists on which diagnoses were subsequently made (OR 1.42 95% CI 1.13 to 1.78) and when compared with lists during which matched endoscopists diagnosed benign small focal lesions (OR 1.25, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.52). The use of sedation, endoscopist profession and experience, or time of procedure were not associated with a missed cancer.

CONCLUSION

7.7% of patients diagnosed with OG cancer could have been diagnosed and treated earlier. Our study suggests that endoscopy lists with greater numbers of procedures may be associated with missed OG cancers. The use of sedation, endoscopist background or time of procedure did not increase the risk of missed cancer procedures.