Colonoscopy conversion after flexible sigmoidoscopy screening: results from the UK Bowel Scope Screening Programme

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.

Calibrating Natural History of Cancer Models in the Presence of Data Incompatibility: Problems and Solutions

The calibration of cancer natural history models is often challenged by a lack of representative calibration targets, forcing modellers to rely on potentially incompatible datasets. Using a microsimulation colorectal cancer model as an example, the purposes of this paper are to (1) highlight the reasons for uncertainty in calibration targets, (2) illustrate practical and generalisable approaches for dealing with incompatibility in calibration targets, and (3) discuss the importance of future research in the area of incorporating uncertainty in calibration. The low quality of data and differences in populations, outcome definitions, and healthcare systems may result in incompatibility between the model and the data. Acknowledging reasons for data incompatibility allows assessment of the risk of incompatibility before calibrating the model. Only a few approaches are available to address data incompatibility, for instance addressing biases in calibration targets and their adjustment, relaxing the goodness-of-fit metric, and validation of the calibration targets to the data not used in the calibration. However, these approaches lack explicit comparison and validation, and so more research is needed to describe the nature and causes of indirect uncertainty (i.e. uncertainty that cannot be expressed in absolute quantitative forms) and identify methods for managing this uncertainty in healthcare modelling.