Canadian Association of Gastroenterology consensus guidelines on safety and quality indicators in endoscopy

Deaths and cardiopulmonary events following colorectal cancer screening-A systematic review with meta-analyses

BACKGROUND

Colorectal cancer screening programmes (CRCSPs) are implemented worldwide despite recent evidence indicating more physical harm occurring during CRCSPs than previously thought. Therefore, we aimed to review the evidence on physical harms associated with endoscopic diagnostic procedures during CRCSPs and, when possible, to quantify the risk of the most serious types of physical harm during CRCSPs, i.e. deaths and cardiopulmonary events (CPEs).

METHODS

Systematic review with descriptive statistics and random-effects meta-analyses of studies investigating physical harms following CRCSPs. We conducted a systematic search in the literature and assessed the risk of bias and the certainty of the evidence.

RESULTS

We included 134 studies for review, reporting findings from 151 unique populations when accounting for multiple screening interventions per study. Physical harm can be categorized into 17 types of harm. The evidence was very heterogeneous with inadequate measurement and reporting of harms. The risk of bias was serious or critical in 95% of assessments of deaths and CPEs, and the certainty of the evidence was very low in all analyses. The risk of death was assessed for 57 populations with large variation across studies. Meta-analyses indicated that 3 to 23 deaths occur during CRCSPs per 100,000 people screened. Cardiopulmonary events were assessed for 55 populations. Despite our efforts to subcategorize CPEs into 17 distinct subtypes, 41% of CPE assessments were too poorly measured or reported to allow quantification. We found a tendency towards lower estimates of deaths and CPEs in studies with a critical risk of bias.

DISCUSSION

Deaths and CPEs during CRCSPs are rare, yet they do occur during CRCSPs. We believe that our findings are conservative due to the heterogeneity and low quality of the evidence. A standardized system for the measurement and reporting of the harms of screening is warranted.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

PROSPERO Registration number CRD42017058844.

An Innovative, Quick and Cost-Effective Technique of Dispensing Endoscopy Reports

Endoscopy is a commonly performed out patient procedure in the field of Otorhinolaryngology. One of the important parts of an endoscopy is the task of reporting and printing the report to make it available for the patient as well as the treating physician. Most endoscopy reporting software available commercially are expensive and needs appropriate hardware, expertise and manpower for running the same. The following article describes an innovative, time and cost-effective technique, which can be used for reporting purposes using a simple smart phone and a basic data pack with no additional manpower.

Quality of Capsule Endoscopy Reporting in Patients Referred for Double Balloon Enteroscopy

Background

Abnormal video capsule endoscopy (VCE) findings often require intervention with double balloon enteroscopy (DBE). Accurate VCE reporting is important for procedural planning. In 2017 the American Gastroenterological Association (AGA) published a guideline that included recommended elements for VCE reporting. The aim of this study was to examine adherence to the AGA reporting guidelines for VCE.

Methods

The medical records of all patients who underwent DBE at a tertiary academic center between February 1, 2018, and July 1, 2019, were retrospectively reviewed to identify the VCE report that prompted DBE. Data were collected on the presence of each reporting element recommended by the AGA. Differences in reporting between academic and private practices were compared.

Results

A total of 129 VCE reports were reviewed (84 private practice and 45 academic practice). Reports consistently included indication, date, endoscopist, findings, diagnosis, and management recommendations. Timing of anatomic landmarks and abnormalities were included in only 87.6% of reports and preparation quality in only 26.2%. Reports from private practice groups were significantly more likely to include the type of capsule (P < 0.001). VCE reports from academic centers were more likely to include adverse outcomes (P < 0.001), pertinent negatives (P = 0.0015), extent of exam (P = 0.009), previous investigations (P = 0.045), medications (P < 0.001), and document communication to patient/referring physician (P = 0.001).

Conclusions

Most VCE reports in both private and academic settings included the important elements recommended by the AGA; however only 87% listed the times of landmarks and abnormal findings, which are crucial in determining the type and direction of approach for subsequent interventions. It is unclear whether the quality of VCE reporting influences the outcome of subsequent DBE.

Optimal endoscopic localization of colorectal neoplasms: a comparison of rural versus urban documentation practices

BACKGROUND

Colonoscopy is the gold standard for diagnosing colorectal neoplasms. However, colonoscopy is often repeated preoperatively due to non-standard documentation and inconsistent practices by index endoscopists. Repeat endoscopies result in treatment delays and can increase risks of complications. National consensus recommendations were recently developed for optimal endoscopic colorectal lesion localization. We aimed to assess baseline colonoscopy practice differences from the new recommendations with a focus on geographical variability in report quality between urban and rural referral sites.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective review of patients who underwent elective surgery for colorectal neoplasms at a single institution in Winnipeg between 2007-2020. We compared endoscopy report quality to the national recommendations with charts stratified by endoscopy location. Our primary outcomes were overall report documentation completeness and use of recommended practices.

RESULTS

One hundred ninety-four patients were included (97 rural, 97 urban). The mean overall compliance with the recommendations for urban endoscopies was marginally better compared to rural endoscopies (50% vs. 48%, p = 0.04). Sixty-eight percent of the reports complied with tattoo indications (72% urban; 63% rural, p = 0.16). On average, reports included 29% of recommended tattoo information (30% urban; 28% rural, p = 0.25) and demonstrated 74% appropriate tattoo technique (70% urban; 81% rural, p = 0.10). Twenty-one percent of reports included photographs of lesions in accordance with the national recommendations (28% urban; 13% rural, p = 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

Endoscopists frequently omit recommended practices for optimal colorectal lesion localization. Rural reports miss more recommended information compared to urban reports. Future research is needed to facilitate province-wide high-quality endoscopy reporting for patients regardless of endoscopy location.

Models of Care for Inflammatory Bowel Disease: A National Cross-sectional Survey to Characterize the Landscape of Inflammatory Bowel Disease Care in Canada

Background

Collaborative care models improve inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) patient outcomes, yet little is known about the capacity or available resources to deliver such model of care in Canada. We aimed to describe the structure and process characteristics of clinical care delivery models for IBD across Canada, including the number of collaborative care centers.

Methods

A cross-sectional study was conducted between November 2017 and October 2018 through an online survey. This survey was distributed to gastroenterologists at community and academic centers across Canada who provide care for IBD patients. Comparisons between collaborative and non-collaborative centers were analyzed using chi-squares or t-tests. Descriptive statistics of respondent demographics were also generated.

Results

Seventy-two gastroenterologists from 62 unique IBD centers completed the survey. A total of 7 unique collaborative centers and 55 unique non-collaborative centers were identified. There were significant differences between collaborative and non-collaborative centers in some aspects of access to IBD care, patient assessment and referral process, and patent education and empowerment. Notably, very few centers had processes for implementing and evaluating evidence-based clinical pathways, and auditing quality indicators.

Conclusions

Our findings identify areas for improving the quality of IBD care in Canada. Expanding the number of and access to collaborative care centers in Canada is needed, in addition to increased focus on patient education, communication, and implementation of evidence-based care pathways.

Pediatric endoscopy training across Europe: a survey of the ESPGHAN National Societies Network 2016-2019

Background and study aims  The ability to perform endoscopy procedures safely and effectively is a key aspect of quality clinical care in Pediatric Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Nutrition (PGHN). The aim of this survey, which was part of a global survey on PGHN training in Europe, was to assess endoscopy training opportunities provided across Europe. Methods  Responses to standardized questions related to endoscopy training were collected from training centers across Europe through the presidents/representatives of the European Society for Paediatric Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Nutrition National Societies from June 2016 to December 2019. Results  A total of 100 training centers from 19 countries participated in the survey. In 57 centers, the endoscopy suit was attached to the PGHN center, while in 23, pediatric endoscopies were performed in adult endoscopy facilities. Ninety percent of centers reported the availability of specialized endoscopy nurses and 96 % of pediatric anesthetists. Pediatric endoscopies were performed by PGHN specialists in 55 centers, while 31 centers reported the involvement of an adult endoscopist and 14 of a pediatric surgeon. Dividing the number of procedures performed at the training center by the number of trainees, ≤ 20 upper, lower, or therapeutic endoscopies per trainee per year were reported by 0 %, 23 %, and 56 % of centers, respectively, whereas ≤ 5 wireless capsule endoscopies per trainee per year by 75 %. Only one country (United Kingdom) required separate certification of competency in endoscopy. Conclusions  Differences and deficiencies in infrastructure, staffing, and procedural volume, as well as in endoscopy competency assessment and certification, were identified among European PGHN training centers limiting training opportunities in pediatric endoscopy.

Quantification of Mucosal Activity from Colonoscopy Reports via the Simplified Endoscopic Mucosal Assessment for Crohn's Disease

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic mucosal healing is the gold standard for evaluating Crohn's disease (CD) treatment efficacy. Standard endoscopic indices are not routinely used in clinical practice, limiting the quality of retrospective research. A method for retrospectively quantifying mucosal activity from documentation is needed. We evaluated the simplified endoscopic mucosal assessment for CD (SEMA-CD) to determine if it can accurately quantify mucosal severity recorded in colonoscopy reports.

METHODS

Pediatric patients with CD underwent colonoscopy that was video recorded and evaluated via Simple Endoscopic Score for CD (SES-CD) and SEMA-CD by central readers. Corresponding colonoscopy reports were de-identified. Central readers blinded to clinical history and video scoring were randomly assigned colonoscopy reports with and without images. The SEMA-CD was scored for each report. Correlation with video SES-CD and SEMA-CD were assessed with Spearman rho, inter-rater, and intrarater reliability with kappa statistics.

RESULTS

Fifty-seven colonoscopy reports were read a total of 347 times. The simplified endoscopic mucosal assessment for CD without images correlated with both SES-CD and SEMA-CD from videos (rho = 0.82, P < .0001 for each). The addition of images provided similar correlation. Inter-rater and intrarater reliability were 0.93 and 0.92, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

The SEMA-CD applied to retrospective evaluation of colonoscopy reports accurately and reproducibly correlates with SES-CD and SEMA-CD of colonoscopy videos. The SEMA-CD for evaluating colonoscopy reports will enable quantifying mucosal healing in retrospective research. Having objective outcome data will enable higher-quality research to be conducted across multicenter collaboratives and in clinical registries. External validation is needed.

Pediatric Endoscopy Quality Improvement Network (PEnQuIN) quality standards and indicators for pediatric endoscopy: an ASGE-endorsed guideline

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Current endoscopy quality guidelines largely focus on cancer screening-related metrics that are not applicable to pediatric populations. Through an international Pediatric Endoscopy Quality Improvement Network (PEnQuIN), quality standards and indicators for pediatric endoscopic procedures were developed and endorsed by the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE).

METHODS

The Appraisal of Guidelines for REsearch and Evaluation II instrument guided PEnQuIN members, from 31 centers representing 11 countries, in generating and refining proposed quality standards and indicators. Quality of evidence and strength of recommendations were rated according to the Grading of Recommendation Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach. Consensus on reporting elements was sought with an iterative online Delphi process.

RESULTS

Forty-nine quality standards and 47 indicators, encompassing pediatric endoscopy facilities, procedures, and endoscopists, as well as 30 reporting elements essential for inclusion within a pediatric endoscopy report reached consensus. Minimal acceptable standards were defined for 3 key indicators related to pediatric lower endoscopy: terminal ileal intubation rate ≥85%, cecal intubation rate ≥90%, and rate of adequate bowel preparation ≥80%. There was strong consensus that terminal ileal intubation, rather than cecal intubation, is integral to ensuring high-quality endoscopic care in children.

CONCLUSIONS

The PEnQuIN guidelines establish international agreement on clinically meaningful metrics tailored to pediatric endoscopy that can be used to promote safe, high-quality, patient- and family-centered endoscopic care. Moving forward, it is recommended that all providers and facilities involved in endoscopy service for children adopt the PEnQuIN standards, indicators, and key reporting elements outlined in these ASGE-endorsed guidelines.

Association of Trainee Participation in Colonoscopy Procedures With Quality Metrics

IMPORTANCE

Trainees routinely participate in colonoscopy procedures, yet whether their involvement is positively or negatively associated with procedural quality is unknown because prior studies involved small number of trainees and/or supervisors, lacked generalizability, and/or failed to adjust for potential confounders.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the association between trainee participation and colonoscopy quality metrics.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This multicenter population-based cohort study was conducted at 21 academic and community hospitals between April 1, 2017, and October 31, 2018, among consecutive adult patients undergoing colonoscopy. Procedures performed by endoscopists who did not supervise trainees were excluded. Statistical analysis was performed from April 3, 2017, to October 31, 2018.

EXPOSURE

Participation by a trainee, defined as a resident or fellow enrolled in a gastroenterology or general surgery training program.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The primary outcome was the adenoma detection rate (ADR), and secondary outcomes were sessile serrated polyp detection rate (ssPDR), polyp detection rate (PDR), cecal intubation rate (CIR), and perforation rate.

RESULTS

A total of 35 499 colonoscopies (18 989 women [53.5%]; mean [SD] patient age, 60.0 [14.1] years) were performed by 71 physicians (mean [SD] time in practice, 14.0 [9.3] years); 5941 colonoscopies (16.7%) involved trainees. There were no significant differences in the ADR (26.4% vs 27.3%; P = .19), CIR (96.7% vs 97.2%; P = .07), and perforation rate (0.05% vs 0.06%; P = .82) when trainees participated vs when they did not participate, whereas the the ssPDR (4.4% vs 5.2%; P = .009) and PDR (39.2% vs 42.0%; P < .001) were significantly lower when trainees participated vs when they did not. After adjustment for potential confounders, the ADR (risk ratio [RR], 0.97; 95% CI, 0.91-1.03; P = .30), PDR (RR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.93-1.04; P = .47), and CIR (RR, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.78-1.10; P = .38) were not associated with trainee participation, although the ssPDR remained significantly lower (RR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.64-0.98; P = .03).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

This study suggests that trainee involvement during colonoscopy was associated with reduced ssPDR but not other colonoscopy outcome measures. Extra care should be exercised when examining the right colon when trainees are involved.

Reaching Consensus on Politicized Topics: A Convening of Public Health Professionals to Discuss Appropriate Abortion Activities for US Health Departments

CONTEXT

Public health professionals, particularly those in state and local health departments, do not always have clear understandings of their roles related to politically controversial public health topics. A process of consensus development among public health professionals that considers the best available evidence may be able to guide decision making and lay out an appropriate course of action.

APPROACH

In May 2020, a group of maternal and child health and family planning professionals working in health departments, representatives of schools of public health, and members of affiliated organizations convened to explore values and principles relevant to health departments' engagement in abortion and delineate activities related to abortion that are appropriate for health departments. The convening followed a structured consensus process that included multiple rounds of input and opportunities for feedback and revisions.

OUTCOMES

Convening participants came to consensus on principles to guide engagement in activities related to abortion, a set of activities related to abortion that are appropriate for health departments, and next steps to support implementation of such activities.

LESSONS LEARNED

The experience of the convening indicates that consensus processes can be feasible for politically controversial public health topics such as abortion.

Quality measures in endoscopy: A systematic analysis of the overall scientific level of evidence and conflicts of interest

Background and study aims  Quality measures were established to develop standards to help assess quality of care, yet variation in endoscopy exists. We performed a systematic review to assess the overall quality of evidence cited in formulating quality measures in endoscopy. Methods  A systematic search was performed on multiple databases from inception until November 15, 2020, to examine the quality measures proposed by all major societies. Quality measures were assessed for their level of quality evidence and categorized as category A (guideline-based), category B (observational studies) or category C (expert opinion). They were also examined for the type of measure (process, structure, outcome), the quality, measurability, review, existing conflicts of interest (COI), and patient participation of the quality measure. Results  An aggregate total of 214 quality measures from nine societies (15 manuscripts) were included and analyzed. Of quality measures in endoscopy, 71.5 %, 23.8 %, and 4.7 % were based on low, moderate, and high quality of evidence, respectively. The proportion of high-quality evidence across societies was significantly different ( P  = 0.028). Of quality measures, 76 % were quantifiable, 18 % contained patient-centric outcomes, and 7 % reported outcome measures. None of the organizations reported on patient involvement or external review, six disclosed existing COI, and 40 % were published more than 5 years ago. Conclusions  Quality measures are important to standardize clinical practice. Because over 70 % of quality measures in endoscopy are based on low-quality evidence, further studies are needed to improve the overall quality to effectively set a standard, reduce variation, and improve care in endoscopic practice.

Gastrointestinal Endoscopy-Associated Infections: Update on an Emerging Issue

Over 17.7 million gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopic procedures are performed annually, contributing to 68% of all endoscopic procedures in the United States. Usually, endoscopic procedures are low risk, but adverse events may occur, including cardiopulmonary complications, bleeding, perforation, pancreatitis, cholangitis, and infection. Infections after the GI endoscopies most commonly result from the patient's endogenous gut flora. Although many studies have reported infection after GI endoscopic procedures, a true estimate of the incidence rate of post-endoscopy infection is lacking. In addition, the infection profile and causative organisms have evolved over time. In recent times, multi-drug-resistant microorganisms have emerged as a cause of outbreaks of endoscope-associated infections (EAI). In addition, lapses in endoscope reprocessing have been reported, with some but not all outbreaks in recent times. This systematic review summarizes the demographical, clinical, and management data of EAI events reported in the literature. A total of 117 articles were included in the systematic review, with the majority reported from North America and Western Europe. The composite infection rate was calculated to be 0.2% following GI endoscopic procedures, 0.8% following ERCP, 0.123% following non-ERCP upper GI endoscopic procedures, and 0.073% following lower GI endoscopic procedures. Pseudomonas aeruginosa was the most common culprit organism, followed by other Enterobacteriaceae groups of organisms and Gram-positive cocci. We have also elaborated different prevention methods such as antimicrobial prophylaxis, adequate sterilization methods for reprocessing endoscopes, periodic surveillance, and current evidence supporting their utilization. Finally, we discuss disposable endoscopes, which could be an alternative to reprocessing to minimize the chances of EAIs with their effects on the environmental and financial situation.

Pediatric Endoscopy Quality Improvement Network Quality Standards and Indicators for Pediatric Endoscopic Procedures: A Joint NASPGHAN/ESPGHAN Guideline

INTRODUCTION

High-quality pediatric gastrointestinal procedures are performed when clinically indicated and defined by their successful performance by skilled providers in a safe, comfortable, child-oriented, and expeditious manner. The process of pediatric endoscopy begins when a plan to perform the procedure is first made and ends when all appropriate patient follow-up has occurred. Procedure-related standards and indicators developed to date for endoscopy in adults emphasize cancer screening and are thus unsuitable for pediatric medicine.

METHODS

With support from the North American and European Societies of Pediatric Gastroenterology Hepatology and Nutrition (NASPGHAN and ESPGHAN), an international working group of the Pediatric Endoscopy Quality Improvement Network (PEnQuIN) used the methodological strategy of the Appraisal of Guidelines for REsearch and Evaluation (AGREE) II instrument to develop standards and indicators relevant for assessing the quality of endoscopic procedures. Consensus was sought via an iterative online Delphi process and finalized at an in-person conference. The quality of evidence and strength of recommendations were rated according to the GRADE (Grading of Recommendation Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) approach.

RESULTS

The PEnQuIN working group achieved consensus on 14 standards for pediatric endoscopic procedures, as well as 30 indicators that can be used to identify high-quality procedures. These were subcategorized into three subdomains: Preprocedural (3 standards, 7 indicators), Intraprocedural (8 standards, 18 indicators), and Postprocedural (3 standards, 5 indicators). A minimum target for the key indicator, "rate of adequate bowel preparation," was set at ≥80%.

DISCUSSION

It is recommended that all facilities and individual providers performing pediatric endoscopy worldwide initiate and engage with the procedure-related standards and indicators developed by PEnQuIN to identify gaps in quality and drive improvement.

Overview of the Pediatric Endoscopy Quality Improvement Network Quality Standards and Indicators for Pediatric Endoscopy: A Joint NASPGHAN/ESPGHAN Guideline

INTRODUCTION

Pediatric-specific quality standards for endoscopy are needed to define best practices, while measurement of associated indicators is critical to guide quality improvement. The international Pediatric Endoscopy Quality Improvement Network (PEnQuIN) working group was assembled to develop and define quality standards and indicators for pediatric gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures through a rigorous guideline consensus process.

METHODS

The Appraisal of Guidelines for REsearch and Evaluation (AGREE) II instrument guided PEnQuIN members, recruited from 31 centers of various practice types representing 11 countries, in generating and refining proposed quality standards and indicators. Consensus was sought via an iterative online Delphi process, and finalized at an in-person conference. Quality of evidence and strength of recommendations were rated according to the GRADE (Grading of Recommendation Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) approach.

RESULTS

Forty-nine quality standards and 47 indicators reached consensus, encompassing pediatric endoscopy facilities, procedures, endoscopists, and the patient experience. The evidence base for PEnQuIN standards and indicators was largely adult-based and observational, and downgraded for indirectness, imprecision, and study limitations to "very low" quality, resulting in "conditional" recommendations for most standards (45/49).

CONCLUSIONS

The PEnQuIN guideline development process establishes international agreement on clinically meaningful metrics that can be used to promote safety and quality in endoscopic care for children. Through PEnQuIN, pediatric endoscopists and endoscopy services now have a framework for auditing, providing feedback, and ultimately, benchmarking performance. Expansion of evidence and prospective validation of PEnQuIN standards and indicators as predictors of clinically relevant outcomes and high-quality pediatric endoscopic care is now a research priority.

Pediatric Endoscopy Quality Improvement Network Pediatric Endoscopy Reporting Elements: A Joint NASPGHAN/ESPGHAN Guideline

INTRODUCTION

High-quality procedure reports are a cornerstone of high-quality pediatric endoscopy as they ensure the clear communication of procedural events and outcomes, guide patient care and facilitate continuous quality improvement. The aim of this document is to outline standardized reporting elements that achieved international consensus as requirements for high-quality pediatric endoscopy procedure reports.

METHODS

With support from the North American and European Societies of Pediatric Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Nutrition (NASPGHAN and ESPGHAN), an international working group of the Pediatric Endoscopy Quality Improvement Network (PEnQuIN) used Delphi methodology to identify key elements that should be found in all pediatric endoscopy reports. Item reduction was attained through iterative rounds of anonymized online voting using a 6-point scale. Responses were analyzed after each round and items were excluded from subsequent rounds if ≤50% of panelists rated them as 5 ("agree moderately") or 6 ("agree strongly"). Reporting elements that ≥70% of panelists rated as "agree moderately" or "agree strongly" were considered to have achieved consensus.

RESULTS

Twenty-six PEnQuIN group members from 25 centers internationally rated 63 potential reporting elements that were generated from a systematic literature review and the Delphi panelists. The response rates were 100% for all three survey rounds. Thirty reporting elements reached consensus as essential for inclusion within a pediatric endoscopy report.

DISCUSSION

It is recommended that the PEnQuIN Reporting Elements for pediatric endoscopy be universally employed across all endoscopists, procedures and facilities as a foundational means of ensuring high-quality endoscopy services, while facilitating quality improvement activities in pediatric endoscopy.

Pediatric Endoscopy Quality Improvement Network Quality Standards and Indicators for Pediatric Endoscopists and Endoscopists in Training: A Joint NASPGHAN/ESPGHAN Guideline

INTRODUCTION

High-quality pediatric endoscopy requires reliable performance of procedures by competent individual providers who consistently uphold all standards determined to assure optimal patient outcomes. Establishing consensus expectations for ongoing monitoring and assessment of individual pediatric endoscopists is a method for confirming the highest possible quality of care for such procedures worldwide. We aim to provide guidance to define and measure quality of endoscopic care for children.

METHODS

With support from the North American and European Societies of Pediatric Gastroenterology Hepatology and Nutrition (NASPGHAN and ESPGHAN), an international working group of the Pediatric Endoscopy Quality Improvement Network (PEnQuIN) used the methodological strategy of the Appraisal of Guidelines for REsearch and Evaluation (AGREE) II instrument to develop standards and indicators relevant for assessing the quality of endoscopists. Consensus was sought via an iterative online Delphi process and finalized at an in-person conference. The quality of evidence and strength of recommendations were rated according to the GRADE (Grading of Recommendation Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) approach.

RESULTS

The PEnQuIN working group achieved consensus on 6 standards that all providers who perform pediatric endoscopy should uphold and 2 standards for pediatric endoscopists in training, with 7 corresponding indicators that can be used to identify high-quality endoscopists. Additionally, these can inform continuous quality improvement at the provider level. Minimum targets for defining high-quality pediatric ileocolonoscopy were set for 2 key indicators: cecal intubation rate (≥90%) and terminal ileal intubation rate (≥85%).

DISCUSSION

It is recommended that all individual providers performing or training to perform pediatric endoscopy initiate and engage with these international endoscopist-related standards and indicators developed by PEnQuIN.

Pediatric Endoscopy Quality Improvement Network Quality Standards and Indicators for Pediatric Endoscopy Facilities: A Joint NASPGHAN/ESPGHAN Guideline

INTRODUCTION

There is increasing international recognition of the impact of variability in endoscopy facilities on procedural quality and outcomes. There is also growing precedent for assessing the quality of endoscopy facilities at regional and national levels by using standardized rating scales to identify opportunities for improvement.

METHODS

With support from the North American and European Societies of Pediatric Gastroenterology Hepatology and Nutrition (NASPGHAN and ESPGHAN), an international working group of the Pediatric Endoscopy Quality Improvement Network (PEnQuIN) used the methodological strategy of the Appraisal of Guidelines for REsearch and Evaluation (AGREE) II instrument to develop standards and indicators relevant for assessing the quality of facilities where endoscopic care is provided to children. Consensus was reached via an iterative online Delphi process and subsequent in-person meeting. The quality of evidence and strength of recommendations were rated according to the GRADE (Grading of Recommendation Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach.

RESULTS

The PEnQuIN working group achieved consensus on 27 standards for facilities supporting pediatric endoscopy, as well 10 indicators that can be used to identify high-quality endoscopic care in children. These standards were subcategorized into three subdomains: Quality of Clinical Operations (15 standards, 5 indicators); Patient and Caregiver Experience (9 standards, 5 indicators); and Workforce (3 standards).

DISCUSSION

The rigorous PEnQuIN process successfully yielded standards and indicators that can be used to universally guide and measure high-quality facilities for procedures around the world where endoscopy is performed in children. It also underscores the current paucity of evidence for pediatric endoscopic care processes, and the need for research into this clinical area.

Patients' Experiences Before, During, and After a Colonoscopy Procedure: A Qualitative Study

Although colonoscopy is a common examination, there is limited research focusing on how patients experience this procedure. It is important that a colonoscopy is tolerated, as it may lead to lifesaving diagnostics and treatment. This study aims to explore adult patients' experience of undergoing a colonoscopy regarding the time prior to, during, and after the procedure. This was a qualitative study with individual interviews (n = 24) and a purposeful sample that was analyzed using thematic analysis. The analysis revealed four themes. The first, "making up one's mind," describes how the participants gathered information and reflected emotionally about the forthcoming procedure. The hope of clarification motivated them to proceed. In the theme "getting ready," self-care was in focus while the participants struggled to follow the instructions and carry out the burdensome cleansing. The next theme, "going through," illuminates' experiences during the colonoscopy and highlights the importance of feeling involved and respected. The last theme, "finally over," is characterized by experiences of relief, tiredness, and a desire for clarity. The healthcare professionals' ability to meet the participants' needs is vital, given that the experiences are highly individual. These findings contribute to a variegated image of how patients experience the process of undergoing a colonoscopy.

Comparing the Real-World Effectiveness of High- Versus Low-Volume Split Colonoscopy Preparations: An Experience Through the British Columbia Colon Cancer Screening Program

Background

The British Columbia Colon Screening Program (BCCSP) is a population-based colon cancer screening program. In December 2018, physicians in Vancouver, Canada agreed to switch from a low-volume split preparation to a high-volume polyethylene glycol preparation after a meta-analysis of studies suggested superiority of the higher volume preparation in achieving adequate bowel cleansing and improving adenoma detection rates.

Aims

To compare the quality of bowel preparation and neoplasia detection rates using a high-volume split preparation (HVSP) versus a low-volume split preparation (LVSP) in patients undergoing colonoscopy in the BCCSP.

Methods

A retrospective review of patients undergoing colonoscopy through the BCCSP at St. Paul’s Hospital from July 2017 to November 2018 and December 2018 to November 2019 was conducted. Inclusion criteria included age 50 to 74 and patients undergoing colonoscopy through the BCCSP. Variables collected included patient demographics and bowel preparation quality. Rates of bowel preparation and neoplasia detection were analyzed using chi-squared test.

Results

A total of 1453 colonoscopies were included, 877 in the LVSP group and 576 in the HVSP group. No statistically significant difference was noted between rates of inadequate bowel preparation (LVSP 3.6% versus HVSP 2.8%; P = 0.364). Greater rates of excellent (48.4% versus 40.1%; P = 0.002) and optimal (90.1% versus 86.5%; P = 0.041) bowel preparation were achieved with HVSP. The overall adenoma detection rate was similar between the two groups (LVSP 53.1% versus HVSP 54.0%; P = 0.074). LVSP demonstrated higher overall sessile serrated lesion detection rate (9.5% versus 5.6%; P = 0.007).

Conclusions

Compared to LVSP, HVSP was associated with an increase in excellent and optimal bowel preparations, but without an improvement in overall neoplasia detection.

Risks associated with colonoscopy in a population-based colon screening program: an observational cohort study

BACKGROUND

The risks associated with colonoscopy performed through the British Columbia Colon Screening Program (BCCSP) are not known. We aimed to determine the rate of colonoscopy-related serious adverse events within this program.

METHODS

For this prospective observational study, we used the BCCSP database to identify participants 50 to 74 years of age who had a positive result on fecal immunochemical testing (FIT) between Nov. 15, 2013, and Dec. 31, 2017, followed by colonoscopy. Unplanned medical events were recorded at the time of colonoscopy and 14 days later. We reviewed the unplanned events and defined them as serious adverse events if they resulted in death, hospital admission or intervention; we also classified them as probably, possibly or unlikely related to the colonoscopy. The primary outcome was the overall rate of serious adverse events; the secondary outcomes were 14-day post-colonoscopy rates of perforation, bleeding and death.

RESULTS

During the study period, a total of 96 192 colonoscopies were performed by 308 physicians at 50 sites. The median age of patients was 62 (10th-90th percentile 52-71) years, and 56% were male. Of these, 78 831 patients were contacted after the colonoscopy. Serious adverse events were deemed to have occurred in 350 colonoscopies (44 per 10 000, 95% confidence interval [CI] 39-50 per 10 000), with a number needed to harm of 225. Of the 332 (94.9%) serious adverse events that were probably or possibly related to colonoscopy, perforation occurred in 6 (95% CI 5-8) per 10 000 colonoscopies, bleeding in 26 (95% CI 22-30) per 10 000 colonoscopies and death in 3 (95% CI 1-10) per 100 000 colonoscopies.

INTERPRETATION

The rate of serious adverse events associated with colonoscopy in the BCCSP was in keeping with previous publications and met accepted benchmarks. The findings of this study inform stakeholders of the risks associated with colonoscopy in an FIT-based colon screening program.

Medical professional liability in gastroenterology: definitions, trends, risk factors, provider behaviors, and implications

Introduction: Medical professional liability (MPL) is a notable concern for many clinicians, especially in procedure-intensive specialties such as gastroenterology (GI). Comprehensive understanding of the basis for MPL claims can improve gastroenterologists' practice, lower MPL risk, and improve the overall patient care experience. This is particularly relevant in the setting of the increasing average compensation per paid GI-related MPL claim, and evolving healthcare delivery patterns and regulations.Areas Covered: MPL claims are generally grounded in the concept of negligence, a broad term that may apply to situations involving medical errors, ameliorable adverse events, inadequate informed consent and/or refusal, and numerous others. Though often not directly discussed in GI training or thereafter, there are various mechanisms and behaviors that can alter (decrease or increase) MPL risk. Additional dimensions of MPL include telemedicine, social media, and vicarious liability. We discuss these topics as well as takeaways to mitigate risk, thus reducing unnecessary clinician anxiety, promoting professional development, and optimizing healthcare outcomes.Expert Opinion: MPL risk is modifiable. Strong provider-patient relationships, through effective communication, patient reassurance, and enhanced informed consent, decrease risk, as does thorough documentation. Conversely, provider 'defensive' mechanisms intended to decrease MPL risk, including assurance and avoidance behaviors, may paradoxically increase it.

Quality of reporting in endoscopic ultrasound: Results of an international multicenter survey (the QUOREUS study)

Background and study aims  The endoscopic report has a key role in quality improvement for gastrointestinal endoscopy. High quality standards have been set by the endoscopic societies in this field. Unlike other digestive endoscopy procedures, the quality of reporting in endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) has not been thoroughly evaluated and a reference standard is lacking. Methods  We performed an international online survey concerning the attitudes of endosonographers towards EUS reports in order to understand the needs for standardization and quality improvement. Endosonographers from different countries and institutional setting, with varying case volume and experience were invited to take part to complete a structured questionnaire. Results  We collected replies from 171 endosonographers. Overall analysis of results according to case volume, experience and working environment of respondents (academic, public hospital, private) are provided. In brief, everyone agreed on the need for standardization of EUS reporting. The use of minimal standard terminology and a structured tree with mandatory items was considered of primary importance. Image documentation was also deemed fundamental in complementing EUS reports both for patient documentation and research purposes. A strong demand for connection and consultation among endosonographers for clinical and training needs was also found. In this respect, a formal expert consultation network was advocated in order to improve the quality of reporting in EUS. Conclusions  Our survey showed a strong agreement among endosonographers who expressed the need for a standardization in order to improve the report and, as a consequence, the quality of EUS.

Repeat preoperative endoscopy after regional implementation of electronic synoptic endoscopy reporting: a retrospective comparative study

BACKGROUND

Repeat preoperative endoscopy is common for patients with colorectal neoplasms. This can result in treatment delays, patient discomfort, and risks of colonoscopy-related complications. Repeat preoperative endoscopy has been attributed to poor communication between endoscopists and surgeons. In January 2019, mandatory electronic synoptic reporting for endoscopy was implemented to include elements consistent with quality indicators proposed in national guidelines. The aim of the present study is to assess whether the repeat preoperative endoscopy rate for colorectal lesions changed following synoptic report implementation.

METHODS

A retrospective review was performed of 1690 consecutive patients who underwent elective surgical resection for colorectal neoplasms from January 2007 to June 2020 at a tertiary hospital in Canada. Patients who had an index endoscopy documented via synoptic report were compared to those reported via narrative report. Primary outcomes were rates of repeat preoperative endoscopy and inclusion of colonoscopy quality indicators: photo-documentation, tattoo placement, and bowel preparation score.

RESULTS

In total, 1429 patients who underwent elective colorectal resection for colorectal cancers or polyps between January 2007 and June 2020 were included. 115 had index endoscopies recorded via synoptic report and 1314 by narrative report. The repeat preoperative endoscopy rate after endoscopies documented by narrative report was 29.07% (95% CI 26.63-31.61) and 25.22% (95% CI 17.58-34.17%) for synoptic report. Patients whose index endoscopies where performed by a practitioner other than their operating surgeon had a re-endoscopy rate of 36.03% (95% CI 32.82-39.33%) after narrative report and 38.81% (95% CI 27.14-51.50%) for synoptic report. Rates of tattoo placement, photo-documentation, and reporting of bowel preparation quality were all significantly increased with synoptic reports (p ≤ 0.003).

CONCLUSIONS

Endoscopy synoptic reports based on current guidelines were not associated with a decrease in rates of repeat pre-operative endoscopy at a high-volume colorectal cancer centre. Future study should examine guideline deficiencies for this purpose and make necessary modifications.

Adult Gastroenterology Trainees’ Experience of Receiving Feedback on Their Performance of Endoscopy in the Workplace

Background

Competency-based gastrointestinal endoscopy training is concerned with outcomes of the learning experience. Feedback allows for trainees to achieve the expected outcomes. However, little is known about trainees’ experience of receiving feedback. Gaining understanding of their experience could help improve feedback practices. The study was conducted to explore what it means for adult gastroenterology trainees to receive feedback on their performance of endoscopy in the workplace.

Methods

An interpretative phenomenological approach was used. Individual semi-structured interviews were conducted with six trainees from three Canadian adult gastroenterology residency programs. Interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim for analysis. Analysis was conducted to identify the phenomenological themes across participants’ accounts of lived experience to provide an insight into the meaning of experiencing the studied phenomenon.

Findings

Three phenomenological themes of experience were identified: taking pauses, negotiating understandings and accepting asymmetry. Taking pauses allowed for participants to receive feedback on their performance of endoscopy. Participants needed to negotiate attending gastroenterologists’ different understandings of gastrointestinal endoscopy while carrying their own whenever feedback was provided. They had to accept the asymmetry between the roles of care provider and learner as well.

Discussion

The study has captured the uniqueness and the complexity of the lived experience of receiving feedback on the performance of endoscopy in the workplace from the perspective of study participants. The gained understanding of this experience has enabled the authors to suggest how attending gastroenterologists’ feedback practices may be improved.

Standard reporting elements for the performance of EUS: Recommendations from the FOCUS working group

Background and Objectives

Quality indicators for the performance of EUS have been developed to monitor and improve service value and patient outcomes. To support the incorporation of these indicators and standardize EUS documentation, we propose standard EUS reporting elements for endosonographers and endoscopy units.

Methods

A comprehensive literature search and review was performed to identify EUS quality indicators and key components of high-quality standardized EUS reporting. Guidance statements regarding standard EUS reporting elements were developed and reviewed at the Forum for Canadian Endoscopic Ultrasound (FOCUS) 2019 Annual Meeting.

Results

EUS reporting elements can be divided into preprocedural, intraprocedural, and postprocedural items. Preprocedural components include the type, indication, and urgency of the procedure and patient clinical information and consent. Intraprocedural components include the adequacy and extent of examination, relevant landmarks, lesion characteristics, sampling method, specimen quality, and intraprocedural adverse events. Postprocedural components include a summary and synthesis of relevant findings as well as recommended management and follow-up.

Conclusions

Standardizing reporting elements may help improve the care of patients undergoing EUS procedures. Our review provides a practical guide and compilation of recommended reporting elements to ensure ongoing best practices and quality improvement in EUS.

Non-pharmacological interventions to improve the patient experience of colonoscopy under moderate or no sedation: a systematic review protocol

INTRODUCTION

The patient experience is a critical dimension of colonoscopy quality. Sedative and analgesic drugs are commonly used to improve the patient experience of colonoscopy, with predominant regimens being deep sedation, typically achieved with propofol, and moderate sedation, typically achieved with an opioid and a benzodiazepine. However, non-pharmacological interventions exist that may be used to improve patient experience. Furthermore, by identifying non-pharmacological interventions to increase the quality of patient experience under moderate sedation, jurisdictions facing rising use of deep sedation for colonoscopy and its significant associated costs may be better able to encourage patients and clinicians to adopt moderate sedation. Advancing either of these aims requires synthesising the evidence and raising awareness around these non-pharmacological interventions to improve the patient experience of colonoscopy.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

A systematic review will be conducted that searches multiple electronic databases from inception until 2020 to identify randomised controlled trials evaluating what, if any, non-pharmacological interventions are effective compared with placebo or usual care for improving the patient experience of routine colonoscopy under moderate or no sedation. Two reviewers will independently perform a three-stage screening process and extract all study data using piloted forms. Study quality will be assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool V.2.0. Where multiple studies evaluate a single intervention, evidence will be quantitatively synthesised using pairwise meta-analysis, otherwise narrative syntheses will be undertaken.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This is a review of existing literature not requiring ethics approval. The review findings will be included in future efforts to develop an implementation strategy to reduce the use of deep sedation for routine colonoscopy. They will also be published in a peer-reviewed journal, presented at conferences and contribute to a doctoral thesis.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42020173906.

Safety Protocols for Videolaryngoscopy During the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Prospective Review of 196 Cases

To prepare safety protocols for performing videolaryngoscopy (VLS) during COVID-19 pandemic, that would be feasible for patients, hospital and the health care providers. This was a prospective study performed from March 01, 2020 to June 30, 2020. It analyzed the precautions adapted for VLS initially and subsequently describes modifications with the time. The safety protocols are developed considering the safety aspect, the feasibility aspect (due to increase in number of the VLS), and the financial aspect. The VLS was performed with the personal protective equipment (PPE), including the face shield mask and head cover. The PPE was re-used after sterilization with ethylene oxide. For local anesthesia, the oropharynx was sprayed with 15% xylocaine and nose packed with 4% xylocaine soaked pledget. Following the VLS, the scope was wiped three times with 80% alcohol and then immersed in 5.25% sodium hypochlorite and 0.55% ortho-phthalaldehyde for 10 min each. Each VLS was spaced by at least 15 min gap. The endoscopy suite maintained with laminar air flow. It can be concluded that during the COVID-19 pandemic, the VLS must be performed using PPE with proper sterilization of the scope and the endoscopy suite after the procedure. The use of face shield mask and 15% xylocaine spray into the oropharynx were also highlighted. The financial burden should be minimized by reusing the materials whenever possible.

Quality indicators in gastroscopy. Gastroscopy procedure

Within the project "Quality indicators in digestive endoscopy", pioneered by the Spanish Society for Digestive Diseases (SEPD), the objective of this research is to suggest the structure, process, and results procedures and indicators necessary to implement and assess quality in the gastroscopy setting. First, a chart was designed with the steps to be followed during a gastroscopy procedure. Secondly, a team of experts in care quality and/or endoscopy performed a qualitative review of the literature searching for quality indicators for endoscopic procedures, including gastroscopies. Finally, using a paired analysis approach, a selection of the literature obtained was undertaken. For gastroscopy, a total of nine process indicators were identified (one preprocedure, eight intraprocedure). Evidence quality was assessed with the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) classification scale.

Improvement of Endoscopic Reports with Implementation of a Dictation Template

Aims

Completeness of procedure reports is an important quality indicator in endoscopy. A dictation template was developed to ensure key elements were included in colonoscopy and esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) reports. Endoscopy reports were reviewed prior to and following implementation of the dictation templates to determine whether report completeness improved.

Methods

Key elements in an endoscopic report were identified from published guidelines and posted at dictation stations. Colonoscopy and EGD reports were reviewed for the nine physicians performing endoscopy at St. Paul’s Hospital prior to and following implementation of dictation templates. Dictation completeness was defined as inclusion of all key elements. Dictation completeness and inclusion of individual key elements at the two time points were compared using the t-test and Chi-square test.

Results

Reports for 4648 procedures undertaken by nine endoscopists were reviewed for completeness at each time point (2008 and 2014). Colonoscopy report completeness increased from 65.8% to 83.2% (P < 0.001). Items that improved included documentation of consent, endoscope used, complications, withdrawal time and rectal retroflexion. EGD report completeness increased from 72.7% to 77.3% (P < 0.001) with improvement in documentation of consent and complications. Items consistently underreported for colonoscopy and EGD at both time points included: patient age, comorbidities, current medications and patient comfort.

Conclusion

There was an association between the use of a posted dictation template at dictation stations and the improved completeness of endoscopic reports.

Assessment of the Quality of Outpatient Endoscopic Procedures by Using a Patient Satisfaction Questionnaire

INTRODUCTION

Endoscopic procedures represent an important part of daily practice, both for gastroenterologists and nurses, enabling diagnosis and treatment of digestive diseases. An optimal level of quality needs to be obtained for endoscopic procedures to be efficient, which is reflected directly by patient satisfaction. The Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Satisfaction Questionnaire (GESQ) has already been validated in a multicenter trial as an efficient method for measuring patient satisfaction. Aim The aim of our study was to evaluate the quality of endoscopic procedures and patient satisfaction by applying a modified version of the GESQ in an outpatient facility, with or without deep sedation performed under the supervision of an anesthesiologist.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Our study included 552 patients undergoing diagnostic and therapeutic upper and lower GI endoscopies, including endoscopic ultrasound procedures (EUS) performed under propofol sedation, from September 2015 to February 2016. Consecutive patients examined during these 6 months received the questionnaire which was handed by the endoscopy nurse two hours after procedure. The GESQ was modified to include different sections for: 1) communication skills with questions regarding the quantity and clarity of the information delivered to the patient before and after the procedures; 2) pain and discomfort related to the examination with an added question about the specific procedure the patient had undergone; 3) staff manners; 4) physician's technical skills; 5) facility organization (waiting time, comfort in the recovery room, good facilities and equipment) and 6) overall satisfaction. The questionnaire did not include personal data, while answers were analyzed in a confidential manner.

RESULTS

A total number of 552 patients agreed to answer our questionnaire, 192 (34,7%) underwent gastroscopies, 288 (52,1%) colonoscopies and 72 (13,2%) EUS examinations. Regarding the overall level of satisfaction (assessed on a five-point scale), 476 (86,2%) were very satisfied or satisfied, 69 (12,5%) dissatisfied and the remainder 7 (1,3%) were indifferently. For the communication section 16 (3%) patients were not satisfied with the explanations received before the procedure or with the answers to their questions. Pain and discomfort were mentioned by 29 (5,2%) of the patients, usually related to colonoscopies or EUS examinations. 13 (2,3%) of the patients considered the comfort or intimacy of the recovery room to be poor, and 11 (2%) patients were not satisfied with the waiting time before the procedure.

CONCLUSION

Our modified questionnaire showed good overall patient satisfaction with our endoscopy unit, while also suggesting some areas in need of improvement, such as staff communication skills, better time management and reorganization of the recovery area. Our study demonstrates the importance of such questionnaires in providing feedback information meant to improve standards in endoscopy, including staff skills and organization.

Validation of the St. Paul's Endoscopy Comfort Scale (SPECS) for Colonoscopy

Aims

Patient comfort during colonoscopy is an important measure of quality, which can improve patient satisfaction and compliance with future procedures. Our aim was to develop and validate a pain assessment tool based on objective behavioural cues tailored to outpatients undergoing colonoscopy: St. Paul’s endoscopy comfort score (SPECS).

Methods

A single-centre, prospective study was conducted in consecutive adults undergoing planned outpatient colonoscopy. Patient comfort was independently assessed by the physician, nurse and a research assistant (observer) using the SPECS and the Gloucester scale (GS). In addition, the nurse-assessed patient comfort score (NAPCOMS), nonverbal pain Assessment tool (NPAT) and Richmond agitation sedation scale (RASS) were completed by the observer. Data on subject demographics, sedation dose and duration of the procedure were collected. Following the procedure, patients completed a patient satisfaction questionnaire, including a visual analogue scale (VAS) to measure their overall perceived pain during the procedure.

Results

The study enrolled 350 subjects. The SPECS showed excellent inter-rater reliability among all three raters with an intra-class coefficient (ICC) of 0.81 (95% CI, 0.78–0.84), while the GS showed good reliability with an ICC of 0.77 (95% CI, 0.73–0.80). The SPECS demonstrated moderate agreement with the patient-reported VAS ratings.

Conclusions

The St. Paul’s endoscopy comfort score was successfully validated, demonstrating excellent inter-rater reliability.

Alberta Family Physician Electronic Endoscopy study: Quality of 1769 colonoscopies performed by rural Canadian family physicians

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether rural FP colonoscopists in Alberta are achieving benchmarks in colonoscopy quality.

DESIGN

Prospective, multicentre observational study.

SETTING

Alberta.

PARTICIPANTS

Nine FP colonoscopists.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Proportion of successful cecal intubations; proportion of patients aged 50 and older with pathologically confirmed adenomas; mean number of adenomas per colonoscopy; and serious adverse events related to colonoscopy.

RESULTS

In this 6-month study, 9 rural FPs in Alberta performed 1769 colonoscopies. Overall, all key colonoscopy quality benchmarks were met or exceeded. The proportion of successful cecal intubations was 97.9% (95% CI 97.2% to 98.6%). The proportion of male and female patients aged 50 and older whose first-time colonoscopy results revealed an adenoma was 67.4% (95% CI 62.4% to 72.7%) and 51.1% (95% CI 45.5% to 56.7%), respectively. There were 120 adenomas, 36 advanced adenomas, and 1 colon cancer case per 100 colonoscopies. There were 2 postpolypectomy bleeds and no other serious complications.

CONCLUSION

Alberta rural FP colonoscopists are meeting benchmarks in colonoscopy quality. Ongoing electronic collection of endoscopy quality markers should be encouraged. Supporting and training rural FPs who perform endoscopy might help alleviate current wait times and improve access for rural Canadian patients.

Performance measures for endoscopy services: A European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) quality improvement initiative

The European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) and United European Gastroenterology present a list of key performance measures for endoscopy services. We recommend that these performance measures be adopted by all endoscopy services across Europe. The measures include those related to the leadership, organization, and delivery of the service, as well as those associated with the patient journey. Each measure includes a recommendation for a minimum and target standard for endoscopy services to achieve. We recommend that all stakeholders in endoscopy take note of these ESGE endoscopy services performance measures to accelerate their adoption and implementation. Stakeholders include patients and their advocacy groups; service leaders; staff, including endoscopists; professional societies; payers; and regulators.

Standardising assessment and documentation of pouchoscopy

BACKGROUND/AIMS

Variation in quality of reporting on endoscopic procedures is a common clinical problem. Findings are not documented in a standardised manner and there is a tendency towards reporting abnormal findings only. This study aimed to review quality of flexible pouchoscopy reports and to develop a standardised reporting template.

METHODS

Ileo-anal-pouch experts (n=5) compiled a list of items that should be documented at flexible pouchoscopy. Reports were reviewed retrospectively for their completeness compared with the template. The template was then introduced and quality of reports was analysed prospectively.

RESULTS

One hundred and twenty-one reports produced between March 2015 and June 2015 were reviewed. Between August 2015 and November 2015, the template was introduced and reports were analysed. There was significant improvement in documentation of anus and perianal area (before template (B) 12% to after template (A) 51%, p<0.0001), rectal cuff (B: 55% to A: 75%, p=0.01), pouch-anal anastomosis (B: 37% to A: 67%, p=0.0002) and pouch inlet (B: 13% to A: 41%, p<0.0001). Pouch body was described in high percentage regardless of introduction of the template (B: 98% to A: 97%, p=0.61).

CONCLUSIONS

Documentation of pouchoscopy findings was suboptimal and introduction of a template improved documentation of flexible pouchoscopy significantly.

Readability of endoscopy information leaflets: Implications for informed consent

INTRODUCTION

Valid consent for gastrointestinal endoscopy is required for ethical and legal reasons. Patients are frequently met by an endoscopist for the first time on the day of their procedure. For valid consent to be possible, the patient needs to have received and understood generic information regarding endoscopy in advance. Patient information leaflets (PILs) need to be easily understood by the majority of the population.

METHOD

PILs from 14 secondary care institutions and a sample PIL from the British Society of Gastroenterology were analysed using an online readability tool. Flesch reading ease, Flesch-Kincaid grade (F-K grade) and Simple Measure of Gobbledygook (SMOG) were calculated and compared against national recommendations and literacy standards.

RESULT

Average Flesch reading ease score was 57.5, below the threshold of 60 which indicates a document that is easy to read. Average F-K grade and SMOG were 9.7 and 9.4, respectively; both indicating a reading age of 14-15, the recommended reading age being 11-12. There is considerable variation when documents are analysed by institution. Flesch scores varying from 49.7 to 66.1, F-K grade 8.2-11.4 and SMOG 8.3-10.8 (reading ages 13-17).

CONCLUSION

All PILs analysed exceeded the recommended reading age for patient information. In the context of "straight to test" endoscopy where patients do not have a consultation with clinicians well versed in endoscopy prior to the day of the procedure, this risks invalidating consent. PILs need to be written carefully to ensure the information provided is accessible to patients, and that the language used is suitably aimed to achieve this.

Patient comfort scores do not affect endoscopist behavior during colonoscopy, while trainee involvement has negative effects on patient comfort

INTRODUCTION

Patient comfort is an important part of endoscopy and reflects procedure quality and endoscopist technique. Using the validated, Nurse Assisted Patient Comfort Score (NAPCOMS), this study aimed to determine whether the introduction of NAPCOMS would affect sedation use by endoscopists.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

The study was conducted over 3 phases. Phase One and Two consisted of 8 weeks of endoscopist blinded and aware data collection, respectively. Data in Phase Three was collected over a 5-month period and scores fed back to individual endoscopists on a monthly basis.

RESULTS

NAPCOMS consists of 3 domains - pain, sedation, and global tolerability. Comparison of Phase One and Two, showed no significant differences in sedative use or NAPCOMS. Phase Three data showed a decline in fentanyl use between individual months ( P  = 0.035), but no change in overall NAPCOMS. Procedures involving trainees were found to use more midazolam ( P  = 0.01) and fentanyl ( P  = 0.01), have worse NAPCOMS scores, and resulted in longer procedure duration ( P  < 0.001). Data comparing gastroenterologists and general surgeons showed increased fentanyl use ( P  = 0.037), decreased midazolam use ( P  = 0.001), and more position changes ( P  = 0.002) among gastroenterologists.

CONCLUSIONS

The introduction of a patient comfort scoring system resulted in a decrease in fentanyl use, although with minimal clinical significance. Additional studies are required to determine the role of patient comfort scores in quality control in endoscopy. Procedures completed with trainees used more sedation, were longer, and had worse NAPCOMS scores, the implications of which, for teaching hospitals and training programs, will need to be further considered.

Quality Improvement in Pediatric Endoscopy: A Clinical Report From the NASPGHAN Endoscopy Committee

The current era of healthcare reform emphasizes the provision of effective, safe, equitable, high-quality, and cost-effective care. Within the realm of gastrointestinal endoscopy in adults, renewed efforts are in place to accurately define and measure quality indicators across the spectrum of endoscopic care. In pediatrics, however, this movement has been less-defined and lacks much of the evidence-base that supports these initiatives in adult care. A need, therefore, exists to help define quality metrics tailored to pediatric practice and provide a toolbox for the development of robust quality improvement (QI) programs within pediatric endoscopy units. Use of uniform standards of quality reporting across centers will ensure that data can be compared and compiled on an international level to help guide QI initiatives and inform patients and their caregivers of the true risks and benefits of endoscopy. This report is intended to provide pediatric gastroenterologists with a framework for the development and implementation of endoscopy QI programs within their own centers, based on available evidence and expert opinion from the members of the NASPGHAN Endoscopy Committee. This clinical report will require expansion as further research pertaining to endoscopic quality in pediatrics is published.

Hospital utilization pattern in a hepatogastroenterology department of a research institute hospital, from 2004 to 2013

BACKGROUND

The Theodor Bilharz Research Institute (TBRI) Hospital is a research and referral center for gastroenterology and hepatology. The Hepatogastroenterology (HGE) Department in TBRI Hospital is a center for endoscopy and sonography. The department also has a hepatology ICU. As a part of hospital performance improvement, medical records that satisfy the needs and demands of the healthcare team, setting a practical framework to improve the quality of medical care in TBRI Hospital, were generated.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of the study was to assess the performance of the HGE Department in TBRI Hospital during the 10-year period from 2004 to 2013.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This is a retrospective observational study. Data were sourced from the electronic database of patient records in the form of automated summary discharge forms and from annual reports from the year 2004 until the year 2013, which are available in the Medical Record Unit in TBRI Hospital. HGE Department data include utilization of outpatient and emergency services and inpatient and ICU services. Hospital admission rates and readmission rates (RARs) were also used. Other utilization indices such as ultrasonography and endoscopy and hospital bed utilization indices such as average length of hospital stay (ALOS), bed occupancy rate (BOR), bed turnover rate, and mortality rate (MR) were also included.

RESULTS

Outpatient cases almost doubled from 2004 to 2013 (from 6209 to14241). Inpatient cases increased by 40.5% (from 2003 to 2829). On average, the emergency admissions and ICU admissions formed about one-fourth of total admissions. RAR decreased over the 10 years (from 14.2 to 0.6). ALOS also decreased (from 9.4 to 6.1). BOR increased from 2004 to 2012 only (from 54.3 to 86.3). Bed turnover rate ranged from 21.1 to 28.5, but in 2012 it increased to 47.7 as a result of the increased BOR that year. MR decreased from 8.9 in 2004 to 0.3 in 2013. Ultrasonography increased from 3384 to 3973. Over the 10 years, the number of endoscopies increased about two-fold (from 2677 to 5100) and endoscopic ligation increased more than 10-fold.

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

There is an improvement in the hospital performance indicators represented in the form of increased outpatient services, decreased RAR, decreased ALOS, decreased MR, and increased utilization of endoscopies. It is recommended to implement a strategy based on the present findings for continual improvement for competency even in the future.

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.

Clinical Practice Guidelines for the Use of Video Capsule Endoscopy

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Video capsule endoscopy (CE) provides a noninvasive option to assess the small intestine, but its use with respect to endoscopic procedures and cross-sectional imaging varies widely. The aim of this consensus was to provide guidance on the appropriate use of CE in clinical practice.

METHODS

A systematic literature search identified studies on the use of CE in patients with Crohn's disease, celiac disease, gastrointestinal bleeding, and anemia. The quality of evidence and strength of recommendations were rated using the Grading of Recommendation Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach.

RESULTS

The consensus includes 21 statements focused on the use of small-bowel CE and colon capsule endoscopy. CE was recommended for patients with suspected, known, or relapsed Crohn's disease when ileocolonoscopy and imaging studies were negative if it was imperative to know whether active Crohn's disease was present in the small bowel. It was not recommended in patients with chronic abdominal pain or diarrhea, in whom there was no evidence of abnormal biomarkers typically associated with Crohn's disease. CE was recommended to assess patients with celiac disease who have unexplained symptoms despite appropriate treatment, but not to make the diagnosis. In patients with overt gastrointestinal bleeding, and negative findings on esophagogastroduodenoscopy and colonoscopy, CE should be performed as soon as possible. CE was recommended only in selected patients with unexplained, mild, chronic iron-deficiency anemia. CE was suggested for surveillance in patients with polyposis syndromes or other small-bowel cancers, who required small-bowel studies. Colon capsule endoscopy should not be substituted routinely for colonoscopy. Patients should be made aware of the potential risks of CE including a failed procedure, capsule retention, or a missed lesion. Finally, standardized criteria for training and reporting in CE should be defined.

CONCLUSIONS

CE generally should be considered a complementary test in patients with gastrointestinal bleeding, Crohn's disease, or celiac disease, who have had negative or inconclusive endoscopic or imaging studies.

Duodenoscopy related infection risk and duodenoscope cleaning and disinfection

With the development of minimally invasive techniques, duodenoscope, as an instrument for diagnosis and treatment of pancreaticobiliary diseases, has been gradually applied in clinical practice. Iatrogenic infection caused by duodenoscopy is a well-documented complication, which has gained extensive attention especially in duodenoscope cleaning and disinfecting. It has been postulated that the complexity in design of duodenoscope makes cleaning difficult and poses a risk for nosocomial infections. As such, it is of positive practical significance to analyze the factors that affect cleaning and disinfecting and to take effective measures to do them better, in order to prevent nosocomial infection. This paper briefly reviews the cleaning and sterilizing of duodenoscope and the risk of infection associated with duodenoscopy.

How to Improve the Quality of Screening Endoscopy in Korea: National Endoscopy Quality Improvement Program

In Korea, gastric cancer screening, either esophagogastroduodenoscopy or upper gastrointestinal series (UGIS), is performed biennially for adults aged 40 years or older. Screening endoscopy has been shown to be associated with localized cancer detection and better than UGIS. However, the diagnostic sensitivity of detecting cancer is not satisfactory. The National Endoscopy Quality Improvement (QI) program was initiated in 2009 to enhance the quality of medical institutions and improve the effectiveness of the National Cancer Screening Program (NCSP). The Korean Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy developed quality standards through a broad systematic review of other endoscopic quality guidelines and discussions with experts. The standards comprise five domains: qualifications of endoscopists, endoscopic unit facilities and equipment, endoscopic procedure, endoscopy outcomes, and endoscopic reprocessing. After 5 years of the QI program, feedback surveys showed that the perception of QI and endoscopic practice improved substantially in all domains of quality, but the quality standards need to be revised. How to avoid missing cancer in endoscopic procedures in daily practice was reviewed, which can be applied to the mass screening endoscopy. To improve the quality and effectiveness of NCSP, key performance indicators, acceptable quality standards, regular audit, and appropriate reimbursement are necessary.

Quality Assurance in the Endoscopy Suite: Sedation and Monitoring

Recent development and expansion of endoscopy units has necessitated similar progress in the quality assurance of procedure sedation and monitoring. The large number of endoscopic procedures performed annually underlies the need for standardized quality initiatives focused on mitigating patient risk before, during, and immediately after endoscopic sedation, as well as improving procedure outcomes and patient satisfaction. Specific standards are needed for newer sedation modalities, including propofol administration. This article reviews the current guidelines and literature concerning quality assurance and endoscopic procedure sedation.

Leadership and team building in gastrointestinal endoscopy

A modern endoscopy service delivers high volume procedures that can be daunting, embarrassing and uncomfortable for patients [1]. Endoscopy is hugely beneficial to patients but only if it is performed to high standards [2]. Some consequences of poor quality endoscopy include worse outcomes for cancer and gastrointestinal bleeding, unnecessary repeat procedures, needless damage to patients and even avoidable death [3]. New endoscopy technology and more rigorous decontamination procedures have made endoscopy more effective and safer, but they have placed additional demands on the service. Ever-scarcer resources require more efficient, higher turnover of patients, which can be at odds with a good patient experience, and with quality and safety. It is clear from the demands put upon it, that to deliver a modern endoscopy service requires effective leadership and team working [4]. This chapter explores what constitutes effective leadership and what makes great clinical teams. It makes the point that endoscopy services are not usually isolated, independent units, and as such are dependent for success on the organisations they sit within. It will explain how endoscopy services are affected by the wider policy and governance context. Finally, within the context of the collection of papers in this edition of Best Practice & Research: Clinical Gastroenterology, it explores the potentially conflicting relationship between training of endoscopists and service delivery. The effectiveness of leadership and teams is rarely the subject of classic experimental designs such as randomized controlled trials. Nevertheless there is a substantial literature on this subject within and particularly outside healthcare [5]. The authors draw on this wider, more diffuse literature and on their experience of delivering a Team Leadership Programme (TLP) to the leaders of 70 endoscopy teams during the period 2008-2012. (Team Leadership Programme Link-http://www.qsfh.co.uk/Page.aspx?PageId=Public).

In-training gastrointestinal endoscopy competency assessment tools: Types of tools, validation and impact

The ability to perform endoscopy procedures safely, effectively and efficiently is a core element of gastroenterology practice. Training programs strive to ensure learners demonstrate sufficient competence to deliver high quality endoscopic care independently at completion of training. In-training assessments are an essential component of gastrointestinal endoscopy education, required to support training and optimize learner's capabilities. There are several approaches to in-training endoscopy assessment from direct observation of procedural skills to monitoring of surrogate measures of endoscopy skills such as procedural volume and quality metrics. This review outlines the current state of evidence as it pertains to in-training assessment of competency in performing gastrointestinal endoscopy as part of an overall endoscopy quality and skills training program.

Recommendations for Quality Colonoscopy Reporting for Patients with Inflammatory Bowel Disease: Results from a RAND Appropriateness Panel

BACKGROUND

Consensus on what constitutes a quality colonoscopy report for patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) is lacking. We developed a template for quality colonoscopy reporting that can be used broadly by endoscopists.

METHODS

After a literature review of topics relevant to colonoscopy reporting, members of the Building Research in Inflammatory Bowel Disease Globally (BRIDGe) group and 2 external experts proposed candidate reporting elements. The RAND/University of California, Los Angeles appropriateness method was applied to rate the importance and feasibility of elements for inclusion in colonoscopy reports for patients with IBD. Panelists used the modified Delphi method to anonymously rate the importance and feasibility of candidate elements on a 1-to-9 scale (1-3: not important/feasible, 4-6: moderately important/feasible, 7-9: very important/feasible). Disagreement was assessed using a validated index. The panelists then met in person for discussion followed by a second round of voting. Elements rated a median of 7 or higher on importance after rerating were retained.

RESULTS

One hundred two reporting elements were proposed. A total of 48 elements were retained across the four themes of "disease background," "findings and interventions," "Crohn's disease with an ileocolonic anastomosis," and "pouchoscopy."

CONCLUSIONS

A comprehensive list of recommended elements for quality IBD colonoscopy reporting stratified by clinical scenario has been described, using a rigorous and evidence-based approach. These elements can be incorporated into endoscopy reporting software platforms. Standardized endoscopy reporting may improve the quality of care in IBD.

Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Competency Assessment Tool: reliability and validity evidence

BACKGROUND

Rigorously developed and validated direct observational assessment tools are required to support competency-based colonoscopy training to facilitate skill acquisition, optimize learning, and ensure readiness for unsupervised practice.

OBJECTIVE

To examine reliability and validity evidence of the Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Competency Assessment Tool (GiECAT) for colonoscopy for use within the clinical setting.

DESIGN

Prospective, observational, multicenter validation study. Sixty-one endoscopists performing 116 colonoscopies were assessed using the GiECAT, which consists of a 7-item global rating scale (GRS) and 19-item checklist (CL). A second rater assessed procedures to determine interrater reliability by using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs). Endoscopists' first and second procedure scores were compared to determine test-retest reliability by using ICCs. Discriminative validity was examined by comparing novice, intermediate, and experienced endoscopists' scores. Concurrent validity was measured by correlating scores with colonoscopy experience, cecal and terminal ileal intubation rates, and physician global assessment.

SETTING

A total of 116 colonoscopies performed by 33 novice (<50 previous procedures), 18 intermediate (50-500 previous procedures), and 10 experienced (>1000 previous procedures) endoscopists from 6 Canadian hospitals.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS

Interrater and test-retest reliability, discriminative, and concurrent validity.

RESULTS

Interrater reliability was high (total: ICC=0.85; GRS: ICC=0.85; CL: ICC=0.81). Test-retest reliability was excellent (total: ICC=0.91; GRS: ICC=0.93; CL: ICC=0.80). Significant differences in GiECAT scores among novice, intermediate, and experienced endoscopists were noted (P<.001). There was a significant positive correlation (P<.001) between scores and number of previous colonoscopies (total: ρ=0.78, GRS: ρ=0.80, CL: Spearman's ρ=0.71); cecal intubation rate (total: ρ=0.81, GRS: Spearman's ρ=0.82, CL: Spearman's ρ=0.75); ileal intubation rate (total: Spearman's ρ=0.82, GRS: Spearman's ρ=0.82, CL: Spearman's ρ=0.77); and physician global assessment (total: Spearman's ρ=0.90, GRS: Spearman's ρ=0.94, CL: Spearman's ρ=0.77).

LIMITATIONS

Nonblinded assessments.

CONCLUSION

This study provides evidence supporting the reliability and validity of the GiECAT for use in assessing the performance of live colonoscopies in the clinical setting.