Comparing quality, safety, and costs of colonoscopies performed by nurse vs physician trainees

Roles of nurse-surgeons in global surgical care: A scoping review

AIM

To identify the roles of nurse-surgeons in the provision of surgical care.

DESIGN

Scoping review.

METHODS

This scoping review adhered to the JBI guideline for scoping reviews and EQUATOR Network's PRISMA-ScR checklist. Searches were performed from May 2022 to July 2022 using a combination of MeSH headings, keywords and filters via database and hand searching based on the eligibility criteria. Keywords included nurse-surgeon, nurse endoscopist, nurse hysteroscopist and nurse cystoscopist. Data sources were CINAHL, Cochrane, Google Scholar, PubMed and Scopus. Descriptive analysis was used to report the findings.

RESULTS

Ninety-six included records indicated nurse-surgeon practice in 26 countries. Forty-one nurse-surgeon titles were found, the majority of which were types of nurse practitioner. A total of 5,684,198 surgeries were performed by nurse-surgeons varying from laparotomies to biopsies. Nine records reported that nurse-surgeons perform surgeries safely and on par with physicians with zero to minimal complications. Nineteen records reported improved surgical care efficiency by nurse-surgeons in terms of patient access to surgery, waiting times, surgery times, patient show rates, patient education, physician workload and junior physicians' training. Seven records reported high patient satisfaction. Nurse-surgeons were cost-effective according to five records. Thirteen records recommended the standardization of nurse-surgeon practice.

CONCLUSION

Nurse-surgeons performed millions of surgeries worldwide assisting in easing the global surgical burden. This review identified the roles and benefits nurse-surgeons play in global surgical care. Research gaps on nurse-surgeon roles were discovered including the ambiguity in nurse-surgeon titles and the need to regulate nurse-surgeon practice.

IMPACT

This research addressed the clinical safety, quality, contribution to timely surgical access and cost efficiency of nurse-surgeon performed surgeries, as well as the need to standardize nurse-surgeon practice and use a more consistent nurse-surgeon title to ensure role identification and monitoring.

The effect of nurse assisted colonoscopy on adenoma detection rates: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Adenoma's detection rates have been reported to vary with the participation status of endoscopic nurses during colonoscopy. This meta-analysis was conducted to determine whether the participation of endoscopy nurses during colonoscopy contributed to the improved detection rate of polyps and adenomas.

METHODS

We retrieved English original research from PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane library databases and Chinese original research from the CNKI Data database. We searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the effect of participation of endoscopy nurses during colonoscopy of colorectal polyps and adenomas on polyp detection rates to that of nonparticipation. RevMan5.4 software was used to perform the meta-analysis.

RESULTS

This meta-analysis included 11 randomized controlled trials involving 8278 patients. The results showed no significant difference between colonoscopies performed by nurses and endoscopists, but colonoscopies performed by two nurses significantly improved the detection rate of polyps and adenomas. In the random effects model, there was a significant difference in PDR between the single-observation and dual-observation groups (RR, 1.27; 95%CI, 1.05, 1.54; Z = 2.51; P = 0.01). The ADR difference between the single observation group and the double observation group was statistically significant (RR, 1.15; 95%CI, 1.05, 1.26; Z = 2.91; P = 0.004).

CONCLUSION

Endoscopy nurses' participation in colonoscopy can improve the detection rate of polyps and adenomas, However, more research is needed to confirm the results.

Patient Preferences for Attributes that Characterise Alternative Models of Care in Gastroenterology: A Discrete Choice Experiment

OBJECTIVES

Increased demand for gastroenterology services has resulted in growing waitlists, with patients at risk of exceeding clinically recommended wait-times. Given limited healthcare resources, expanded scope models of care are an option to help address this demand, but little is known about patient preferences for these models of care.

METHODS

Low-risk gastroenterology patients (n = 1198) referred to an outpatient tertiary service in Australia over a 2-year period were invited to participate in an unlabelled discrete choice experiment with seven attributes: primary healthcare professional, wait-time, continuity of care, consultation length, manner and communication skills, reassurance, and cost. These were developed using qualitative research, literature review, and stakeholders' experiences. A d-efficient fractional design was used to construct four blocks of 12 choice sets, with two alternatives. A 13th choice set was included as a data and quality check. Latent class and mixed logit regression were used for analysis. The resulting preference parameters for individual attributes were then used to calculate willingness to pay and willingness to wait.

RESULTS

Overall, the model based on the 347 respondents suggested no strong preference for professional background. All other attributes were statistically significant predictors of preference (p < 0.001), with respondents willing to make significant trade-offs (time and cost) before accepting deterioration in attributes. There was strong emphasis on manner and communication skills, with a clinician who listens and provides good explanations overwhelmingly the most important attribute. Latent class analysis identified two patient segments who differed in their preference for the primary treating healthcare professional (doctor or dietitian) based on exposure to either traditional medical or non-medical professional role substitution model.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients have strong but varied preferences for gastroenterology services based on whether they have been exposed to expanded scope models of care. Design and implementation of new models of care need to consider strategies to overcome any perceived loss in utility or deterioration in healthcare quality for those unfamiliar with professional role substitution.

Nurse's Roles in Colorectal Cancer Prevention: A Narrative Review

The objective of this paper is to investigate the different roles of nurses as members of healthcare teams at the primary, secondary, and tertiary levels of colorectal cancer prevention. The research team conducted a narrative review of studies involving the role of nurses at different levels of colorectal cancer prevention, which included a variety of quantitative, qualitative, and mixed-method studies. We searched PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, Cochrane Reviews, Magiran, the Scientific Information Database (SID), Noormags, and the Islamic Science Citation (ISC) databases from ab initio until 2021. A total of 117 studies were reviewed. Nurses' roles were classified into three levels of prevention. At the primary level, the most important role related to educating people to prevent cancer and reduce risk factors. At the secondary level, the roles consisted of genetic counseling, stool testing, sigmoidoscopy and colonoscopy, biopsy and screening test follow-ups, and chemotherapy intervention, while at the tertiary level, their roles were made up of pre-and post-operative care to prevent further complications, rehabilitation, and palliative care. Nurses at various levels of prevention care also act as educators, coordinators, performers of screening tests, follow-up, and provision of palliative and end-of-life care. If these roles are not fulfilled at some levels of colorectal cancer, it is generally due to the lack of knowledge and competence of nurses or the lack of instruction and legal support for them. Nurses need sufficient clinical knowledge and experience to perform these roles at all levels.

A realist review protocol of the role and contribution of the advanced nurse practitioner (ANP) in gastroenterology nursing

Background: The role and contribution of advanced nurse practitioners (ANP) has been well researched and found to be of great value for improving quality patient care and enhancing patient outcomes through education and health promotion. However, the role and the contribution of the ANP to gastroenterology nursing have not been evaluated either nationally or internationally. A review to determine the role and contribution of the ANP in gastroenterology nursing will inform on the contribution of the role and whether the role makes a difference to patient outcomes and cost effectiveness of patient care. Objective: This review aims to investigate the nursing role and contribution of the advanced nurse practitioner in gastroenterology. Furthermore, improved understanding of the underlying causal mechanisms explaining how the ANP role in gastroenterology nursing works, will provide a deeper understanding of how, why, for whom and in what contexts the role and contribution of the ANP to gastroenterology nursing are most successful. Methods: A realist review will consolidate evidence on how, when why and where the ANP role in gastroenterology works or fails through identifying programme theories underlying to the role’s introduction. The following steps will be operationalised; locating existing theories, searching the literature, documenting literature selection, engaging in data extraction and synthesis and refining programme theory. As an iterative approach, review cycles will uncover explanatory and contingent theories through context-mechanism-outcome configurations (CMOCc). Due to the variation in context and mechanisms, different outcomes will be likely across different clinical settings although similar patterns may be identified. Conclusions: Due to the theory-oriented approach of realist reviews, the pragmatic consequences of the review, will lend itself to deeper understanding of how the role and contribution of the ANP in gastroenterology nursing works in practice.

Quality metrics of screening colonoscopies performed by PAs

BACKGROUND

Many communities face a shortage of qualified endoscopists. Training physician assistants (PAs) to perform colonoscopies can expand the availability of colorectal cancer screening. This study examined screening colonoscopy metrics and quality indicators among gastroenterologists, supervised PAs, and gastroenterology fellows.

METHODS

Consecutive patients undergoing average-risk screening colonoscopy were stratified into one of three groups by endoscopist type. Procedure and pathology reports were reviewed for the technical performance and quality metrics of the providers.

RESULTS

PAs performed comparably to gastroenterologists in technical performance and quality metrics, and demonstrated higher cecal intubation rates than their gastroenterologist colleagues. Comparisons of attending physicians and PAs grouped by years of experience also did not show notable differences in performance.

CONCLUSIONS

In a supervised practice, PAs performed on par with their gastroenterology colleagues on established colonoscopy quality indicators. Following proper training, PAs can be employed in the provision of screening colonoscopy.

Performance Assessment of Subjects With Nursing Education Trained in Sigmoidoscopy by Means of a Simulator

Reports evaluating simulation-based sigmoidoscopy training among nurses are scarce. The aim of this prospective nonrandomized study was to assess the performance of nurses in simulated sigmoidoscopy training and the potential impact on their performance of endoscopy unit experience, general professional experience, and skills in manual activities requiring coordinated maneuvers. Forty-four subjects were included: 12 nurses with (Group A) and 14 nurses without endoscopy unit experience (Group B) as well as 18 senior nursing students (Group C). All received simulator training in sigmoidoscopy. Participants were evaluated with respect to predetermined validated metrics. Skills in manual activities requiring coordinated maneuvers were analyzed to draw possible correlations with their performance. The total population required a median number of 5 attempts to achieve all predetermined goals. Groups A and C outperformed Group B regarding the number of attempts needed to achieve the predetermined percentage of visualized mucosa (p = .017, p = .027, respectively). Furthermore, Group A outperformed Group B regarding the predetermined duration of procedure (p = .046). A tendency was observed for fewer attempts needed to achieve the overall successful endoscopy in both Groups A and C compared with Group B. Increased score on playing stringed instruments was associated with decreased total time of procedure (rs = -.34, p = .03) and with decreased number of total attempts for successful endoscopy (rs = -.31, p = .046). This study suggests that training nurses and nursing students in simulated sigmoidoscopy is feasible by means of a proper training program. Experience in endoscopy unit and skills in manual activities have a positive impact on the training process.

Substitution of nurses for physicians in the hospital setting for patient, process of care, and economic outcomes

This is a protocol for a Cochrane Review (intervention). The objectives are as follows:

The main objective of the review is to examine the impact of substituting nurses for doctors in the hospital setting (hospital inpatient units and outpatient clinics) on patient outcomes, process of care outcomes, and economic outcomes.

The secondary objectives of this review are to assess whether the effects of nurse‐doctor substitution differ according to healthcare setting (low‐ and middle‐income countries versus high‐income countries), patient disease, patient type (inpatients versus outpatients), and mode of nursing practice (unsupervised versus delegated/under medical supervision).

Endocuff-Assisted versus Cap-Assisted Colonoscopy Performed by Trainees: A Retrospective Study

Background/Aims

The adenoma detection rate (ADR) of screening colonoscopies performed by trainees is often lower than that of colonoscopies performed by experts. The effcacy of cap-assisted colonoscopy (CAC) in adenoma detection is well documented, especially that of CACs performed by trainees. Endocuff, a new endoscopic cap, is reportedly useful for adenoma detection; however, no trials have compared the effcacy of Endocuff-assisted colonoscopy (EAC) and CAC conducted by trainees. Therefore, the present study retrospectively compared the effcacy between EAC and CAC in trainees.

Methods

This was a single-center, retrospective study involving 305 patients who underwent either EAC or CAC performed by three trainees between January and December 2018. We evaluated the ADR, mean number of adenomas detected per patient (MAP), cecal intubation rate, cecal intubation time, and occurrence of complications between the EAC and CAC groups.

Results

The ADR was significantly higher in the EAC group than in the CAC group (54.3% vs. 37.3%, p=0.019), as was the MAP (1.36 vs. 0.74, p=0.003). No significant differences were found between the groups with respect to the cecal intubation rate or cecal intubation time. No major complications occurred in either group.

Conclusions

Our results suggest that EAC exhibits increased ADR and MAP compared to CAC when performed by trainees.

Disparities in Utilization of Medical Specialists for Colonoscopy

Purpose: Colonoscopy is the preferred screening modality for colorectal cancer (CRC) prevention. The quality of the procedure varies although medical specialists such as gastroenterologists and colorectal surgeons tend to have better outcomes. We aimed to determine whether there are demographic and clinical differences between those who received a colonoscopy from a specialist versus those who received a colonoscopy from a nonspecialist.

Methods: Using the population-based South Carolina Outpatient Ambulatory Surgery Database, we looked retrospectively to obtain patient-level endoscopy records from 2010 to 2014. We used multilevel logistic regression to model whether patients saw a specialist for their colonoscopy. The primary variables were patient race and insurance type, and an interaction by rurality was tested.

Results: Of the 392,285 patients included in the analysis, 81% saw a specialist for their colonoscopy. County of residence explained 30% of the variability in the outcome. Non-Hispanic black (OR=0.65; confidence interval [95% CI]: 0.64–0.67) and Hispanic patients (OR=0.75; 95% CI: 0.67–0.84) were significantly less likely than non-Hispanic white patients to see a specialist. Compared with commercial/HMO insurance, all other types were less likely to see a specialist, and even more so for rural patients. The interaction of race by rurality was not significant.

Conclusions: Specialists play a key role in CRC screening and can affect later downstream outcomes. This study has shown that ethnic minorities and adults with public or other insurance, particularly in rural areas, are most likely not to see a specialist. These results are consistent with disparities in CRC incidence, mortality, and survival.

Needs Assessment Survey for Nurse Practitioner and Physician Assistant Colonoscopists for a Gastroenterology Community of Practice

Demand for colonoscopy exceeds capacity in the Veterans Health Administration and the private sector. A small number of innovative Veterans Affairs and private sector facilities have created colonoscopy-training fellowships for nurse practitioners and physician assistants (nonphysicians). Additionally, a gastroenterology community of practice might provide knowledge sharing and professional networking opportunities for nonphysician colonoscopists based on assessment of their need for professional activities. A critical appraisal of related literature pointed out key motivational and structural elements of communities of practice. The survey draft was reviewed by content experts and piloted by four nurse practitioner colonoscopists. Using snowball sampling, the survey was sent to nonphysician endoscopists to capture training experiences, interest in membership, and identified preferences for the structure and delivery of a community of practice. Although the sample size was small (N = 7), results validated similar training experiences and confirmed strong interest in launching a gastroenterology community of practice.

Introduction of the Nurse Endoscopist Role in One Australian Health Service

In Australia, nurses performing endoscopic procedures is a recent phenomenon and is uncommon. Challenges include gastroenterologist and patient acceptance of the nurse endoscopist role. This article aims to explore Monash Health's experience with the introduction of a nurse endoscopist. A nurse endoscopist trainee undertook a comprehensive training program under the supervision of a gastroenterologist. All procedural data were collected, organizational policy and procedures were developed, and patients (n = 40) completed a telephone interview postprocedure. The nurse endoscopist trainee completed all training requirements during the 12-month program and was deemed competent for independent practice. The trainee performed 255 colonoscopies, with no complications reported. The organization successfully implemented the expanded scope of practice, established a new model of care for patients, and initiated a governance framework for this advanced practice role. Eighty percent of patients (n = 32) reported that overall, they had a very good experience with the nurse endoscopist trainee. A nurse endoscopist initiative can facilitate the expansion of endoscopy services to meet the growing need for gastroenterological procedures within the community. This pilot program has demonstrated that it is possible to integrate an advanced practice nurse role into an established endoscopy unit.

Assessment of quality indicators among nurse practitioners performing upper endoscopy

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS

 Limited international data have shown that non-physicians can safely perform upper endoscopy, but no such study has been performed in the United States. Our aim was to assess the quality of outpatient upper endoscopies performed by nurse practitioners (NPs).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

 Retrospective chart review of upper endoscopies performed by 3 NPs between 2010 and 2013 was performed. Comparisons among all NPs performing upper endoscopy and assessment of individual NP performance over time with respect to quality indicators were performed.

RESULTS

Three NPs performed 333 upper endoscopies (distribution of 166, 44, and 123, respectively). Of the cases, 98.2 %s were successfully completed to the second portion of the duodenum. In most cases, photo-documentation of required anatomical landmarks was performed: GE junction (84.2 %), GE junction in retroflexed view (84.2 %), antrum (82.1 %) and duodenum (80.9 %). Photo-documentation improved with increasing experience. NPs appropriately performed biopsies for specific medical conditions: 10/11 (90.9 %) gastric ulcers were biopsied and 63/66 (95.5) of patients with iron deficiency had duodenal biopsies performed for celiac disease. A physician endoscopist was required during the procedure 22.5 % of the time. Important parameters such as documenting informed consent (100 %) and documenting a discharge plan (99.4 %) in the procedure reports were overwhelming present. There was a single adverse event during the study period.

CONCLUSION

 In the first US study of NPs performing upper endoscopy, they were able to perform high-quality and safe upper endoscopies. These findings support incorporation of non-physicians alongside physicians to help meet the growing demand for endoscopic services across the United States.

Endoscopy provision: meeting the challenges

BACKGROUND

Endoscopy activity has been increasing in the UK for many years. However, the increasing demand is currently disproportionate to delivered capacity. This, in combination with mandatory efficiency savings, presents an ongoing challenge in the effective continued delivery of diagnostic endoscopy services.

RECENT DEVELOPMENTS

New initiatives in the field of endoscopy that may impact on resource include: faecal immunochemical test, straight to test referral systems, nurse endoscopists, home enemas and split dose bowel preparation.

FUTURE POTENTIAL

System review and improvement is paramount to ensure the diagnostic pathway is of a high clinical quality, efficient, patient focused and sustainable.

Nurse-Performed Endoscopy: Implications for the Nursing Profession in Australia

Increasing demands for health care globally often lead to discussions about expanding the involvement of nurses in a range of nontraditional roles. Several countries have introduced nurse endoscopists as a means of easing the burden of demand for a range of endoscopic procedures. A shortage of medical staff in Australia combined with increasing demand for endoscopy led to the implementation of nurse endoscopists as a pilot program in the state of Queensland, where a nurse practitioner model was implemented, and Victoria, where an advanced practice model was used. This article will discuss the implementation of and responses from the nursing, medical, and policy community to nurse-performed endoscopy in this country. Regarding health policy, access to cancer screening may be improved by providing nurses with advanced training to safely perform endoscopy procedures. Moreover, issues of nurse credentialing and payment need to be considered appropriate to each country's health system model.

Patient safety under deep sedation for digestive endoscopic procedures

Deep sedation with Propofol has become popular in recent years. The safety of this technique when administered by non-anaesthesiologists has created much controversy which at times is masked in a contentious debate on the economic sustainability of the health system. In 2011, the Spanish Society of Anaesthesiology, Resuscitation and Pain Therapy, along with 20 other organisations from European countries, revoked the recommendations of the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy on the administration of Propofol by non-anaesthesiologists, citing that it is "extremely dangerous for the safety and quality of endoscopic procedures". The FDA in 2005 had already rejected the use of Propofol by non-anaesthesiologists in the United States, a prohibition which was reiterated in 2010 and is still in force, basing its evidence, among others, on the recommendations and guidelines of the Joint Commission and the Declaration of Helsinki. In Spain, the data sheet of Propofol restricts the use of the drug to anaesthesiologists and intensivists in intensive care units. In our opinion, the key elements to discuss (which we develop in our paper) are those related to: a) the morbidity and mortality of sedation (which is the same as speaking about the factors that influence its safety); b) the appropriate professionals to use this technique; and c) economic aspects related to the use of said technique. Our conclusion is that a technique cannot be declared safe when a high percentage of patients present with varying respiratory depression (and therefore hypoxaemia) and hypotension. We are confident that the collaboration of the Spanish Society of Digestive Pathology and the Spanish Society of Digestive Endoscopy with the Spanish Society of Anaesthesiology, Resuscitation and Pain Therapy is the first step towards finding a satisfactory solution for everyone, and especially for our patients.

In response to the editorial "Sedation in endoscopy in 2016: Is it safe sedation with propofol led by the endoscopist in complex situations?"

It is universally accepted that deep sedation involves more risks than light-to-moderate sedation. Deep sedation for endoscopic explorations is normally provided by anesthesiologists in Spain and in most countries of the European Unión. The present debate about deep sedation-anesthesia states goes beyond the topic of cardiovascular and respiratory adverse events, and targets the cognitive consequences and global increased mortality of uncontrolled sedation states, especially in specific fragile populations. We consider that strong recomendations for sedative techniques in endoscopic procedures should be made in Spain taking in consideration to two basic principles: 1) according to published evidence concerning patient safety, deep sedation must be an unequivocal responsibility of the anesthesiologist, and 2) we must define which patients are candidates for deep sedation during endoscopic procedures, as this will help to regulate patient flow in clinics and to reduce adverse effects associated with overtreatment of patients.

Training non-physicians to do endoscopy: Feasibility, effectiveness and cost-effectiveness

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is one of the most common cancers in women and men worldwide. Training non-physicians including nurses, nurse practitioners, and physician assistants to perform endoscopy can provide the opportunity to expand access to CRC screening as demand for endoscopic procedures continues to grow. A formal program, incorporating didactic instruction and hands-on practice in addition to oversight, is required to train non-physicians to perform endoscopy as safely and effectively as physicians. Additionally, the context in which the non-physician endoscopy program is organized will dictate key program characteristics including remuneration, participant recruitment and professional and legal considerations. This review explores the evidence in support of non-physician based endoscopy, potential challenges in implementing non-physician endoscopy and requirements for a high-quality program to support training and implementation.

Non-Physician Endoscopy: How Far Can We Go?

BACKGROUND

The delegation of medical tasks to trained nurses is still little discussed in Germany.

METHODS

To get a picture of the current extent of non-physician endoscopy worldwide, we performed a systematic literature research. The following databases were used: CINAHL®, Cochrane Library, the German National Library of Medicine (ZB MED), OPAC, DIMDI, PubMed and MEDLINE. The research words were: nurse and practitioners or nurse clinician and diagnosis and organization and administration. Actual journals and references were used to find relevant studies (hand research).

RESULTS

Non-physician endoscopy has been well established in some European countries, in the USA and in several other countries in the western world.

CONCLUSION

The implementation of such programs should be based on solid scientific consideration and evaluated within the framework of the 'delegation rights'.

Non-physician endoscopists: A systematic review

AIM: To examine the available evidence on safety, competency and cost-effectiveness of nursing staff providing gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy services.

METHODS: The literature was searched for publications reporting nurse endoscopy using several databases and specific search terms. Studies were screened against eligibility criteria and for relevance. Initial searches yielded 74 eligible and relevant articles; 26 of these studies were primary research articles using original datasets relating to the ability of non-physician endoscopists. These publications included a total of 28883 procedures performed by non-physician endoscopists.

RESULTS: The number of publications in the field of non-specialist gastrointestinal endoscopy reached a peak between 1999 and 2001 and has decreased thereafter. 17/26 studies related to flexible sigmoidoscopies, 5 to upper GI endoscopy and 6 to colonoscopy. All studies were from metropolitan centres with nurses working under strict supervision and guidance by specialist gastroenterologists. Geographic distribution of publications showed the majority of research was conducted in the United States (43%), the United Kingdom (39%) and the Netherlands (7%). Most studies conclude that after appropriate training nurse endoscopists safely perform procedures. However, in relation to endoscopic competency, safety or patient satisfaction, all studies had major methodological limitations. Patients were often not randomized (21/26 studies) and not appropriately controlled. In relation to cost-efficiency, nurse endoscopists were less cost-effective per procedure at year 1 when compared to services provided by physicians, due largely to the increased need for subsequent endoscopies, specialist follow-up and primary care consultations.

CONCLUSION: Contrary to general beliefs, endoscopic services provided by nurse endoscopists are not more cost effective compared to standard service models and evidence suggests the opposite. Overall significant shortcomings and biases limit the validity and generalizability of studies that have explored safety and quality of services delivered by non-medical endoscopists.

Colorectal cancer screening quality, cost and practice in an era of healthcare transformation

Colonoscopy for colorectal cancer screening is the largest single source of income for gastroenterologists in the USA. Despite its proven value in preventing colon cancer, it is being scrutinized by payers and regulators as a high-volume procedure with variable quality, cost and documentation. In a rapidly evolving era of reimbursement for added value (high quality, affordable cost) rather than for individual transactions/volume, gastroenterologists are under pressure to change our practices to respond to the demands of the marketplace. Excellent guidance is available through our professional societies.

Colorectal cancer: consensus for CRC screening, but who addresses the controversies?

In an update on recommendations for colorectal cancer screening, an Asia–Pacific consensus group has set a good standard for presenting level of agreement to recommendation levels. However, this update also exposes how consensus groups might concentrate on the less controversial issues—leaving the tricky questions in the dark.