An international survey of polypectomy training and assessment

JAG consensus statements for training and certification in flexible sigmoidoscopy

Introduction

Joint Advisory Group (JAG) certification in endoscopy is awarded when trainees attain minimum competency standards for independent practice. A national evidence-based review was undertaken to update standards for training and certification in flexible sigmoidoscopy (FS).

Methods

A modified Delphi process was conducted between 2019 and 2020 with multisociety representation from experts and trainees. Following literature review and Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations appraisal, recommendation statements on FS training and certification were formulated and subjected to anonymous voting to obtain consensus. Accepted statements were peer-reviewed by national stakeholders for incorporation into the JAG FS certification pathway.

Results

In total, 41 recommendation statements were generated under the domains of: definition of competence (13), acquisition of competence (17), assessment of competence (7) and postcertification support (4). The consensus process led to revised criteria for colonoscopy certification, comprising: (A) achieving key performance indicators defined within British Society of Gastroenterology standards (ie, rectal retroversion >90%, polyp retrieval rate >90%, patient comfort <10% with moderate-severe discomfort); (B) minimum procedure count ≥175; (C) performing 15+ procedures over the preceding 3 months; (D) attendance of the JAG Basic Skills in Lower gastrointestinal Endoscopy course; (E) satisfying requirements for formative direct observation of procedural skill (DOPS) and direct observation of polypectomy skill (SMSA level 1); (F) evidence of reflective practice as documented on the JAG Endoscopy Training System reflection tool and (G) successful performance in summative DOPS.

Conclusion

The UK standards for training and certification in FS have been updated to support training, uphold standards in FS and polypectomy, and provide support to the newly independent practitioner.

JAG consensus statements for training and certification in colonoscopy

Introduction

In the UK, endoscopy certification is awarded when trainees attain minimum competency standards for independent practice. A national evidence-based review was undertaken to update and develop standards and recommendations for colonoscopy training and certification.

Methods

Under the oversight of the Joint Advisory Group (JAG), a modified Delphi process was conducted between 2019 and 2020 with multisociety expert representation. Following literature review and Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations appraisal, recommendation statements on colonoscopy training and certification were formulated and subjected to anonymous voting to obtain consensus. Accepted statements were peer reviewed by JAG and relevant stakeholders for incorporation into the updated colonoscopy certification pathway.

Results

In total, 45 recommendation statements were generated under the domains of: definition of competence (13), acquisition of competence (20), assessment of competence (8) and postcertification support (4). The consensus process led to revised criteria for colonoscopy certification, comprising: (1) achieving key performance indicators defined within British Society of Gastroenterology standards (ie, unassisted caecal intubation rate >90%, rectal retroversion >90%, polyp detection rate >15%+, polyp retrieval rate >90%, patient comfort <10% with moderate–severe discomfort); (2) minimum procedure count 280+; (3) performing 15+ procedures over the preceding 3 months; (4) attendance of the JAG Basic Skills in Colonoscopy course; (5) terminal ileal intubation rates of 60%+ in inflammatory bowel disease; (6) satisfying requirements for formative direct observation of procedure skills (DOPS) and direct observation of polypectomy skills (Size, Morphology, Site, Access (SMSA) level 2); (7) evidence of reflective practice as documented on the JAG Endoscopy Training System reflection tool; (8) successful performance in summative DOPS.

Conclusion

The UK standards for training and certification in colonoscopy have been updated, culminating in a single-stage certification process with emphasis on polypectomy competency (SMSA Level 2+). These standards are intended to support training, improve standards of colonoscopy and polypectomy, and provide support to the newly independent practitioner.

Quality Indicators for the Detection and Removal of Colorectal Polyps and Interventions to Improve Them

Modifiable risk factors for postcolonoscopy colorectal cancer include suboptimal lesion detection (missed neoplasms) and inadequate lesion removal (incomplete polypectomy) during colonoscopy. Competent detection and removal of colorectal polyps are thus fundamental to ensuring adequate colonoscopy quality. Several well-researched quality metrics for polyp detection have been implemented into clinical practice, chief among these the adenoma detection rate. Less data are available on quality indicators for polyp removal, which currently include complete resection rates and skills assessment tools. This review summarizes the available literature on quality indicators for the detection and removal of colorectal polyps, as well as interventions to improve them.

Current challenges and future needs of clinical and endoscopic training in gastroenterology: a European survey

Background and study aims  A universal European training program in gastroenterology and hepatology is currently not available. The European Board of Gastroenterology and Hepatology (EBGH) has produced guidance regarding expected competencies for European gastroenterology trainees but it is unclear whether these have been incorporated in national curricula. The aim of this study was to provide an in-depth assessment of training and research opportunities, professional activities and of socioeconomic aspects of gastroenterology training across Europe through a web-based 90-point questionnaire. Materials and methods  Physicians in their last year or who had recently finished their training, from 16 European countries, were invited to answer the questionnaire. Results  A total of 144 physicians answered the survey. A minimum number of procedures is required before completing training in nine of 16 countries (56 %). Overall, European trainees dedicate a median of 12 months (IQR 6-25) of their training period to endoscopy and a median of 3 months (IQR 0-6) to ultrasound. Training in interventional endoscopy was not always exhaustive, as about 50 % of participants performed fewer of several interventional procedures than was recommended by EBGH, most participants did not perform endoscopic hemostasis or endoscopic mucosal resection, and nearly a half of participants had no access to pancreatobiliary endoscopy training. Finally, up to 13 % of residents complete their training without the supervision of a mentor. Conclusion  In this large European survey, deep gaps and considerable differences in several gastroenterology training activities were found both among and within 16 European countries. Homogenization of educational programs and training opportunities across Europe is therefore necessary.

Optimizing the Quality of Colorectal Cancer Screening Worldwide

Screening, followed by colonoscopic polypectomy (or surgery for malignant lesions), prevents incident colorectal cancer and mortality. However, there are variations in effective application of nearly every aspect of the screening process. Screening is a multistep process, and failure in any single step could result in unnecessary morbidity and mortality. Awareness of variations in operator- and system-dependent performance has led to detailed, comprehensive recommendations in the United States and Europe on how colonoscopy screening should be performed and measured. Likewise, guidance has been provided on quality assurance for nonprimary colonoscopy-based screening programs, including strategies to maximize adherence. Quality improvement is now a validated science, and there is clear evidence that higher quality prevents incident cancer and cancer death. Quality must be addressed at the levels of the system, provider, and individuals, to maximize the benefits of screening for any population. We review the important aspects of measuring and improving the quality of colorectal cancer screening.

Assessing the Quality of Polypectomy and Teaching Polypectomy

Ineffective polypectomy technique may lead to incomplete polyp resection, high complication rates, interval colorectal cancer, and costly referral to surgery. Despite its central importance to endoscopy, training in polypectomy is not standardized nor has the most effective training approach been defined. Polypectomy competence is rarely reported and quality metrics for this skill are lacking. Use of tools and measurements to assess polypectomy outcomes is low. There is a need for standardization of training and remediation in polypectomy; defining standards of competent polypectomy and how it is feasibly measured; and integration of polypectomy quality metrics into training programs and the accreditation process.

Effect of time of day and specialty on polyp detection rates in Australia

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Adenoma detection rate (ADR) is an important quality metric in colonoscopy. However, there is conflicting evidence around factors that influence ADR. This study aims to investigate the effect of time of day and endoscopist background on ADR and sessile serrated adenoma/polyp detection rate (SSA/P-DR) for screening colonoscopies.

METHODS

Consecutive patients undergoing colonoscopy in 2016 were retrospectively evaluated. Primary outcome was the effect of time of day and endoscopist specialty on screening ADR. Secondary outcomes included evaluation of the same factors on SSA/P-DR and other metrics and collinearity of ADR and SSA/P-DR. Linear regression models were used for association between ADR, time of day, and endoscopist background. Bowel preparation, endoscopist, session, patient age, and gender were adjusted for. Linear regression model was also used for comparing ADR and SSA/P-DR. Chi-square was used for difference of proportions.

RESULTS

Two thousand six hundred fifty-seven colonoscopies, of which 558 were screening colonoscopies, were performed. The adjusted mean ADR (screening) was 36.8% in the morning compared with 30.5% in the afternoon (P < 0.0001) and was 36.8% for gastroenterologists compared with 30.4% for surgeons (P < 0.0001). For every 1-h delay in commencing the procedure, there was a reduction in mean ADR by 3.4%. Using a linear regression model, a statistically significant positive association was found between ADR and SSA/P-DR (P < 0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

Morning and afternoon sessions and gastroenterologists and surgeons achieved the minimum standards recommended for ADR. Afternoon lists and surgeons were associated with a lower ADR compared with morning and gastroenterologists, respectively. Additionally, SSA/P-DR showed collinearity with ADR.

Impact of the Joint Advisory Group on Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (JAG) on endoscopy services in the UK and beyond

The Joint Advisory Group on Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (JAG) was initially established in 1994 to standardise endoscopy training across specialties. Over the last two decades, the position of JAG has evolved to meet its current role of quality assuring all aspects of endoscopy in the UK to provide the highest quality, patient-centred care. Drivers such as changes to healthcare agenda, national audits, advances in research and technology and the advent of population-based cancer screening have underpinned this shift in priority. Over this period, JAG has spearheaded various quality assurance initiatives with support from national stakeholders. These have led to the achievement of notable milestones in endoscopy quality assurance, particularly in the three major areas of: (1) endoscopy training, (2) accreditation of endoscopy services (including the Global Rating Scale), and (3) accreditation of screening endoscopists. These developments have changed the landscape of UK practice, serving as a model to promote excellence in endoscopy. This review provides a summary of JAG initiatives and assesses the impact of JAG on training and endoscopy services within the UK and beyond.

Training in Endoscopy

PURPOSE OF THE REVIEW

Progress towards the goal of high-quality endoscopy across health economies has been founded on high-quality structured training programmes linked to credentialing practice and ongoing performance monitoring. This review appraises the recent literature on training interventions, which may benefit performance and competency acquisition in novice endoscopy trainees.

RECENT FINDINGS

Increasing data on the learning curves for different endoscopic procedures has highlighted variations in performance amongst trainees. These differences may be dependent on the trainee, trainer and training programme. Evidence of the benefit of knowledge-based training, simulation training, hands-on courses and clinical training is available to inform the planning of ideal training pathway elements. The validation of performance assessment measures and global competency tools now also provides evidence on the effectiveness of training programmes to influence the learning curve. The impact of technological advances and intelligent metrics from national databases is also predicted to drive improvements and efficiencies in training programme design and monitoring of post-training outcomes. Training in endoscopy may be augmented through a series of pre-training and in-training interventions. In conjunction with performance metrics, these evidence-based interventions could be implemented into training pathways to optimise and quality assure training in endoscopy.