Renewal of and proctoring for endoscopic privileges

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.

Association Between Endoscopist Annual Procedure Volume and Colonoscopy Quality: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND & AIMS

In addition to monitoring adverse events (AEs) and post-colonoscopy colorectal cancers (PCCRC), indicators for assessing colonoscopy quality include adenoma detection rate (ADR) and cecal intubation rate (CIR). It is unclear whether there is an association between annual colonoscopy volume and ADR, CIR, AEs, or PCCRC.

METHODS

We searched publication databases through March 2019 for studies assessing the relationship between annual colonoscopy volume and outcomes, including ADR, CIR, AEs, or PCCRC. Pooled odds ratios (ORs) were calculated using DerSimonian and Laird random effects models. Sensitivity analyses were performed to assess for potential methodological or clinical factors associated with outcomes.

RESULTS

We performed a systematic review of 9235 initial citations, generating 27 retained studies comprising 11,276,244 colonoscopies. There was no association between procedural volume and ADR (OR, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.98-1.02 per additional 100 annual procedures). CIR improved with each additional 100 annual procedures (OR, 1.17; 95% CI, 1.08-1.28). There was a non-significant trend toward decreased overall AEs per additional 100 annual procedures (OR, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.90-1.00). There was considerable heterogeneity among most analyses.

CONCLUSIONS

In a systematic review and meta-analysis, we found higher annual colonoscopy volumes to correlate with higher CIR, but not with ADR or PCCRC. Trends toward fewer AEs were associated with higher annual colonoscopy volumes. There are few data available from endoscopists who perform fewer than 100 annual colonoscopies. Studies are needed on extremes in performance volumes to more clearly elucidate associations between colonoscopy volumes and outcomes.

Quality indicators in digestive endoscopy: introduction to structure, process, and outcome common indicators

The general goal of the project wherein this paper is framed is the proposal of useful quality and safety procedures and indicators to facilitate quality improvement in digestive endoscopy units. This initial offspring sets forth procedures and indicators common to all digestive endoscopy procedures. First, a diagram of pre- and post-digestive endoscopy steps was developed. A group of health care quality and/or endoscopy experts under the auspices of the Sociedad Española de Patología Digestiva (Spanish Society of Digestive Diseases) carried out a qualitative review of the literature regarding the search for quality indicators in endoscopic procedures. Then, a paired analysis was used for the selection of literature references and their subsequent review. Twenty indicators were identified, including seven for structure, eleven for process (five pre-procedure, three intra-procedure, three post-procedure), and two for outcome. Quality of evidence was analyzed for each indicator using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) classification.

Foregut and colonic perforations: practical measures to prevent and assess them

Acute endoscopic perforations of the foregut and colon are rare but can have devastating consequences. There are several principles and practices that can lower the risk of perforation and guide the endoscopist in early assessment when they do occur. Mastery of these principles will lead to overall improved patient outcomes.

Inter-observer agreement in the endoscopic classification of colorectal laterally spreading tumors: a multicenter study between experts and trainees

BACKGROUND AND AIM

The risk of cancer varies with the subtype of colorectal "laterally spreading tumors" (LSTs). However, visual interpretations vary among endoscopists. The aim of this study was to evaluate inter-observer agreement and accuracy in the endoscopic classification of LST subtypes among experts and trainees.

METHODS

In total, 40 LST images were collected and reviewed independently by 14 gastroenterology experts and 10 trainees. All investigators recorded their findings as one of the following four categories: homogeneous, nodular mixed, flat-elevated, and pseudo-depressed. Agreement was assessed in terms of the kappa (κ) statistic and AC1 estimate. Accuracy is reported as percentage agreement with the gold standard, based on the gross morphology of the resected specimens.

RESULTS

Of the possible 91 pair-wise κ estimates among experts, 41 (45.1%) were >0.75, indicating excellent agreement, while only 2 (4.44%) of the 45 pair-wise κ estimates among trainees were >0.75. Agreements for individual LST subtypes in the trainee group were significantly lower than those in the expert group. The κ and AC1 estimates showed similar values in individual subtypes of LSTs. The overall accuracy of LST was also significantly higher for the experts than the trainees (85.9 vs. 72.5%, P < 0.001). Notably, the flat-elevated subtype showed the lowest agreement and accuracy and was frequently misclassified as the pseudo-depressed subtype by both groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Inter-observer agreement and accuracy for LST subtype classification differ significantly between experts and trainees. Implementation of an adequate training system for beginners is necessary to better identify colorectal LSTs.

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.

Surgeon knowledge contributes to the relationship between surgeon volume and patient outcomes in rectal cancer

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether surgeon knowledge contributes to the relationship between surgeon procedure volume and patient outcomes in rectal cancer.

BACKGROUND

Although previous research has shown that treatment by high-volume surgeons is associated with improved outcomes among patients with rectal cancer, the mechanisms for such an association are not well understood.

METHODS

In 2009, a mail survey with 8 questions pertaining to rectal cancer care was created, modified for content validity, and sent to all general surgeons in Nova Scotia, Canada. Patients with rectal cancer, who were treated by the survey respondents between July 1, 2002, and June 30, 2006, were identified retrospectively, and a comprehensive standardized review of medical records was used to collect outcome data for this population-based cohort. The association between surgeon survey score (dichotomized into high- and low-score groups on the basis of the median score), surgeon procedure volume, and patient outcomes was examined.

RESULTS

Of 521 patients who underwent treatment with curative intent from July 1, 2002, to June 30, 2006, 377 patients (72%) were treated by 25 surgeons who responded to the survey. After controlling for patient and tumor factors, patients treated by high-volume surgeons were more likely to receive a total mesorectal excision (TME) [odds ratio (OR) = 3.89; 95% confidence interval (CI), 2.20-5.83], more likely to undergo an adequate lymph node harvest (OR = 3.67; 95%CI, 2.36-5.70), less likely to have a permanent colostomy (OR = 0.53; 95%CI, 0.30-0.93), and less likely to develop local recurrence (HR = 0.54; 95%CI, 0.29-0.99). When surgeon survey score was included in the multivariate regression models, the relationship between surgeon procedure volume and permanent colostomy was diminished. There was a significant interaction between surgeon survey score and surgeon volume for the outcomes of use of TME (P < 0.01) and local recurrence (P = 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

These data suggest that surgeon knowledge may, at least in part, explain surgeon volume-associated differences in rectal cancer outcomes.

Assessing physician competency: an update on the joint commission requirement for ongoing and focused professional practice evaluation

In 2008, the Joint Commission created 2 new hospital standards that revolve around competency assessment of credentialed and privileged healthcare practitioners. These are called Ongoing Professional Practice Evaluation (OPPE) and Focused Professional Practice Evaluation (FPPE). As many pathologists work as members of a hospital medical staff, either through primary employment or contract relationships, pathology departments and groups need to have OPPE and FPPE policies in place and should be using them to evaluate physicians for competency as part of a regular cycle. There are many subtleties in the standards, and careful attention to the details of the policies will be essential. Furthermore, as credentialing and privileging decisions may be made based upon the assessments that are carried out in OPPE and FPPE, it is quite important to follow internal policies consistently. This review describes OPPE and FPPE in detail, with an analysis of the Standards and the Elements of Performance. It also provides scenarios to illustrate the concepts and charts that can be used to create OPPE and FPPE documents for a practice.

Terminology for training of endoscopic submucosal dissection

Like many other advanced endoscopic skills, to master the skill of endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) requires training for a novice. The general medical terminology should be used similarly even in case of ESD training. However, it is not common for everyone to recall the same meaning from one medical term. Therefore, it is necessary to unify the meaning of medical terms and review their usage in a meeting to achieve a consensus. For this purpose, terms used in the upper gastrointestinal session, Endoscopic Forum Japan 2011, entitled 'Towards further penetration of ESD techniques - what is the role of Japanese ESD experts?', were determined beforehand as shown. Additionally, the present educational approach of ESD in Japan is simply outlined in this article.

Evaluation of colonoscopy technical skill levels by use of an objective kinematic-based system

BACKGROUND

Colonoscopy requires training and experience to ensure accuracy and safety. Currently, no objective, validated process exists to determine when an endoscopist has attained technical competence. Kinematics data describing movements of laparoscopic instruments have been used in surgical skill assessment to define expert surgical technique. We have developed a novel system to record kinematics data during colonoscopy and quantitatively assess colonoscopist performance.

OBJECTIVE

To use kinematic analysis of colonoscopy to quantitatively assess endoscopic technical performance.

DESIGN

Prospective cohort study.

SETTING

Tertiary-care academic medical center.

POPULATION

This study involved physicians who perform colonoscopy.

INTERVENTION

Application of a kinematics data collection system to colonoscopy evaluation.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS

Kinematics data, validated task load assessment instrument, and technical difficulty visual analog scale.

RESULTS

All 13 participants completed the colonoscopy to the terminal ileum on the standard colon model. Attending physicians reached the terminal ileum quicker than fellows (median time, 150.19 seconds vs 299.86 seconds; p<.01) with reduced path lengths for all 4 sensors, decreased flex (1.75 m vs 3.14 m; P=.03), smaller tip angulation, reduced absolute roll, and lower curvature of the endoscope. With performance of attending physicians serving as the expert reference standard, the mean kinematic score increased by 19.89 for each decrease in postgraduate year (P<.01). Overall, fellows experienced greater mental, physical, and temporal demand than did attending physicians.

LIMITATION

Small cohort size.

CONCLUSION

Kinematic data and score calculation appear useful in the evaluation of colonoscopy technical skill levels. The kinematic score appears to consistently vary by year of training. Because this assessment is nonsubjective, it may be an improvement over current methods for determination of competence. Ongoing studies are establishing benchmarks and characteristic profiles of skill groups based on kinematics data.

Complications of colonoscopy: magnitude and management

Although complications of colonoscopy are rare, they are potentially serious and life threatening. In addition, less serious adverse events may occur frequently and may have an impact on a patient's willingness to undergo future procedures. This article reviews the magnitude of and risk factors for major and minor colonoscopy complications, discusses management of complications, and suggests ways to design quality improvement programs to reduce the risk of complications.