Joint Advisory Group on Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (JAG) framework for managing underperformance in gastrointestinal endoscopy

Patient safety incidents in endoscopy: a human factors analysis of nonprocedural significant harm incidents from the National Reporting and Learning System (NRLS)

BACKGROUND

Despite advances in understanding and reducing the risk of endoscopic procedures, there is little consideration of the safety of the wider endoscopy service. Patient safety incidents (PSIs) still occur. We sought to identify nonprocedural PSIs (nPSIs) and their causative factors from a human factors perspective and generate ideas for safety improvement.

METHODS

Endoscopy-specific PSI reports were extracted from the National Reporting and Learning System (NRLS). A retrospective, cross-sectional human factors analysis of data was performed. Two independent researchers coded data using a hybrid thematic analysis approach. The Human Factors Analysis and Classification System (HFACS) was used to code contributory factors. Analysis informed creation of driver diagrams and key recommendations for safety improvement in endoscopy.

RESULTS

From 2017 to 2019, 1181 endoscopy-specific PSIs of significant harm were reported across England and Wales, with 539 (45.6%) being nPSIs. Five categories accounted for over 80% of all incidents, with "follow-up and surveillance" being the largest (23.4% of all nPSIs). From the free-text incident reports, 487 human factors codes were identified. Decision-based errors were the most common act prior to PSI occurrence. Other frequent preconditions to incidents were focused on environmental factors, particularly overwhelmed resources, patient factors, and ineffective team communication. Lack of staffing, standard operating procedures, effective systems, and clinical pathways were also contributory. Seven key recommendations for improving safety have been made in response to our findings.

CONCLUSIONS

This was the first national-level human factors analysis of endoscopy-specific PSIs. This work will inform safety improvement strategies and should empower individual services to review their approach to safety.

Pediatric endoscopy: how can we improve patient outcomes and ensure best practices?

INTRODUCTION

Strategies to promote high-quality endoscopy in children require consensus around pediatric-specific quality standards and indicators. Using a rigorous guideline development process, the international Pediatric Endoscopy Quality Improvement Network (PEnQuIN) was developed to support continuous quality improvement efforts within and across pediatric endoscopy services.

AREAS COVERED

This review presents a framework, informed by the PEnQuIN guidelines, for assessing endoscopist competence, granting procedural privileges, audit and feedback, and for skill remediation, when required. As is critical for promoting quality, PEnQuIN indicators can be benchmarked at the individual endoscopist, endoscopy facility, and endoscopy community levels. Furthermore, efforts to incorporate technologies, including electronic medical records and artificial intelligence, into endoscopic quality improvement processes can aid in creation of large-scale networks to facilitate comparison and standardization of quality indicator reporting across sites.

EXPERT OPINION

PEnQuIN quality standards and indicators provide a framework for continuous quality improvement in pediatric endoscopy, benefiting individual endoscopists, endoscopy facilities, and the broader endoscopy community. Routine and reliable measurement of data, facilitated by technology, is required to identify and drive improvements in care. Engaging all stakeholders in endoscopy quality improvement processes is crucial to enhancing patient outcomes and establishing best practices for safe, efficient, and effective pediatric endoscopic care.

Quality in colonoscopy: time to ensure national standards are implemented?

Background

High-quality colonoscopy is crucial to ensure complete mucosal visualisation and to maximise detection of pathology. Previous audits showing variable quality have prompted national and international colonoscopy improvement programmes, including the development of quality assurance standards and key performance indicators (KPIs). The most widely used marker of mucosal visualisation is the adenoma detection rate (ADR), however, histological confirmation is required to calculate this. We explored the relationship between core colonoscopy KPIs.

Methods

Data were collected from colonoscopists in eight hospitals in North East England over a 6-month period, as part of a quality improvement study. Procedural information was collected including number of colonoscopies, caecal intubation rate (CIR), ADR and polyp detection rate (PDR). Associations between KPIs and colonoscopy performance were analysed.

Results

9265 colonoscopies performed by 118 endoscopists were included. Mean ADR and PDR per endoscopist were 16.6% (range 0-36.3, SD 7.4) and 27.2% (range 0-57.5, SD 9.3), respectively. Mean number of colonoscopies conducted in 6 months was 78.5 (range 4-334, SD 61). Mean CIR was 91.2% (range 55.5-100, SD 6.6). Total number of colonoscopies and ADR>15% were significantly associated (p=0.04). Undertaking fewer colonoscopies and using hyoscine butylbromide less frequently was significantly associated with ADR<15%. CIR, endoscopist grade, % male patients, mean patient age and CIR were not significantly related to ADR<15%. In adjusted analyses, factors which affected ADR were PDR and mean patient age.

Conclusion

Colonoscopists who perform fewer than the nationally stipulated minimum of 100 procedures per year had significantly lower ADRs. This study demonstrates that PDR can be used as a marker of ADR; providing age is also considered.

Quality indicators of colonoscopy care: a qualitative study from the perspectives of colonoscopy participants and nurses

Background

Quality of care in colonoscopy is closely related to colonoscopy participants and the nursing workforce in endoscopy-related settings. However, limited data are available on the evaluations and recommendations regarding quality indicators for nursing care by these two groups. Therefore, the aim of this study was to explore the standards and requirements of quality of care in colonoscopy from the perspectives of patients and nurses.

Method

With a descriptive qualitative study, semi-structured interviews were conducted between November 2021 and January 2022 with colonoscopy participants (P = 11) and nursing workforce (N = 7) in the endoscopy unit in a tertiary hospital. The interviews were analyzed using a thematic analysis.

Results

Nine major themes emerged according to the structure, process, and outcome care quality model: workforce structure, quality requirements, unit facilities, nursing tools, nursing quality control systems, dynamic assessment and intervention, pre-examination care, strengthening education, and colonoscopy outcomes.

Conclusion

The indicator of quality of colonoscopy care should be used to assess and improve current practices to ensure a more direct and sustained impact of colonoscopy care. This study highlights the importance of nurse managers valuing the opinions and reflections of people involved in colonoscopy to improve the quality of colonoscopy care.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12913-022-08466-5.

JAG consensus statements for training and certification in oesophagogastroduodenoscopy

INTRODUCTION

Training and quality assurance in oesophagogastroduodenoscopy (OGD) is important to ensure competent practice. A national evidence-based review was undertaken to update and develop standards and recommendations for OGD training and certification.

METHODS

Under the oversight of the Joint Advisory Group (JAG), a modified Delphi process was conducted with stakeholder representation from British Society of Gastroenterology, Association of Upper Gastrointestinal Surgeons, trainees and trainers. Recommendations on OGD training and certification were formulated following literature review and appraised using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation. These were subjected to electronic voting to achieve consensus. Accepted statements were incorporated into the updated certification pathway.

RESULTS

In total, 32 recommendation statements were generated for the following domains: definition of competence (4 statements), acquisition of competence (12 statements), assessment of competence (10 statements) and post-certification support (6 statements). The consensus process led to following certification criteria: (1) performing ≥250 hands-on procedures; (2) attending a JAG-accredited basic skills course; (3) attainment of relevant minimal performance standards defined by British Society of Gastroenterology/Association of Upper Gastrointestinal Surgeons of Great Britain and Ireland, (4) achieving physically unassisted D2 intubation and J-manoeuvre in ≥95% of recent procedures, (5) satisfactory performance in formative and summative direct observation of procedural skills assessments.

CONCLUSION

The JAG standards for diagnostic OGD have been updated following evidence-based consensus. These standards are intended to support training, improve competency assessment to uphold standards of practice and provide support to the newly-independent practitioner.