Patient comfort and quality in colonoscopy

Clinician-reported Gloucester Comfort Scale scores underestimate patient discomfort and pain during colonoscopy: insights from comparison with a patient-reported experience measure

Patient experience is a fundamental element of colonoscopy. The Gloucester Comfort Scale (GCS) is used by clinicians to report patient comfort. However, insights regarding the extent to which clinician-reported GCS scores represent the patient's experience are lacking. We assessed the level of agreement between clinician-reported GCS scores and patient-reported discomfort and pain.Consecutive patients undergoing colonoscopy at two Dutch endoscopy clinics were included. Patient comfort during colonoscopy was reported using the GCS (1-5 scale). Patients' colonoscopy experiences were assessed using the Newcastle ENDOPREM, a validated endoscopy patient-reported experience measure (PREM). Patients reported both discomfort and pain levels experienced during colonoscopy on a 1-5 scale. Levels of agreement were assessed using Cohen's kappa statistic.For 243 included patients, the GCS score was higher than the PREM discomfort score in 52 patients (21%) and lower in 72 (30%). GCS score was higher than the PREM pain score in 39 patients (16%) and lower in 71 (29%). Moderate-to-severe discomfort and pain (scores ≥3) were reported by 53 patients (22%) for discomfort and 60 patients (25%) for pain. For these patients, the GCS underestimated discomfort and pain levels in almost all cases (discomfort 49/53 [92%], pain 54/60 [90%]). Agreement between GCS scores and PREM discomfort and pain scores were minimal (Cohen's κ 0.34) and weak (Cohen's κ 0.47), respectively.Clinician-reported GCS scores frequently underestimated the level of discomfort and pain reported by patients. For accurate monitoring of patients' colonoscopy experiences, the use of PREMs should be considered.

Exploring intraprocedural performance in colonoscopy: Insights from a tertiary care center in Saudi Arabia

BACKGROUND

Colonoscopy is essential for diagnosing and managing colorectal conditions, and is recognized as the gold standard for early cancer detection and removal of precancerous lesions. The American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy and the American College of Gastroenterology have established benchmark indicators to minimize the risk of interval colorectal cancer. Despite their importance, research on these metrics in Saudi Arabia is limited. This study analyzes key intraprocedural indicators of colonoscopies at a tertiary care center to evaluate adherence to care standards.

METHODS

This retrospective study examined 3763 colonoscopies conducted by adult gastroenterologists at Johns Hopkins Aramco Healthcare from January 2021 to December 2022. Procedures were categorized as screening and non-screening, with demographic data collected alongside withdrawal time (WT), cecal intubation rate (CIR), polyp detection rate (PDR), adenoma detection rate (ADR), Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS), polyp retrieval rate, rectal retroflexion, and adverse events.

RESULTS

The mean age of participants was 54.13 years, with 81.56% of them Saudis and 44.6% female. The average WT was 10 min. The overall CIR was 93.6% (94.78% for screening), with a PDR of 33.9% and a retrieval rate of 96.6%. ADR for screening participants was 25.63%, and 88.94% of participants achieved a BBPS score of 6 or more. The adverse event rate was at 0.2%, primarily due to bleeding.

CONCLUSIONS

The study indicates that colonoscopy procedures adhere to care standards, with ADR among male screening patients approaching 30%. Further research is necessary to evaluate pre- and post-procedural indicators.

Randomized controlled trial of effects of a familiarization video and patient-controlled Entonox inhalation on patient stress levels and clinical efficacy of flexible sigmoidoscopy without analgesia or sedation for investigation of fresh rectal bleeding

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Flexible sigmoidoscopy (FS) without analgesia or sedation can be unpleasant for patients, resulting in unsatisfactory examinations. Prior familiarization videos (FVs) and intra-procedural Entonox inhalation have shown inconsistent effects. This study investigated their effects on undesirable participant factors (anxiety, stress, discomfort, pain, satisfaction, later unpleasant recall of procedure, and vasovagal reactions) and clinical effectiveness (extent of bowel seen, lesions detected, and procedural/recovery times).

METHODS

This cluster-randomized single-center study evaluated 138 participants undergoing FS. There were 46 controls, 49 given access to FV, and 43 access to both FV and self-administered Entonox. Participant factors were measured by self-administered questionnaires, independent nurse assessments, and heart rate variability (HRV) metrics.

RESULTS

Questionnaires showed that the FV group was slightly more tense and upset before FS, but knowledge of Entonox availability reduced anxiety. Nonlinear HRV metrics confirmed reduced intra-procedural stress response in the FV/Entonox group compared with controls and FV alone (P < 0.05). Entonox availability allowed more bowel to be examined (P < 0.001) but increased procedure time (P < 0.05), while FV alone had no effect. FV/Entonox participants reported 1 month after FS less discomfort during the procedure. Other comparisons showed no significant differences between treatment groups, although one HRV metric showed some potential to predict vasovagal reactions.

CONCLUSIONS

Entonox availability significantly improved clinical effectiveness and caused a slight reduction in undesirable participant factors. The FV alone did not reduce undesirable participant factors or improve clinical effectiveness. Nonlinear HRV metrics recorded effects in agreement with stress reduction and may be useful for prediction of vasovagal events in future studies.

British Society of Gastroenterology guidelines on sedation in gastrointestinal endoscopy

Over 2.5 million gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures are carried out in the United Kingdom (UK) every year. Procedures are carried out with local anaesthetic r with sedation. Sedation is commonly used for gastrointestinal endoscopy, but the type and amount of sedation administered is influenced by the complexity and nature of the procedure and patient factors. The elective and emergency nature of endoscopy procedures and local resources also have a significant impact on the delivery of sedation. In the UK, the vast majority of sedated procedures are carried out using benzodiazepines, with or without opiates, whereas deeper sedation using propofol or general anaesthetic requires the involvement of an anaesthetic team. Patients undergoing gastrointestinal endoscopy need to have good understanding of the options for sedation, including the option for no sedation and alternatives, balancing the intended aims of the procedure and reducing the risk of complications. These guidelines were commissioned by the British Society of Gastroenterology (BSG) Endoscopy Committee with input from major stakeholders, to provide a detailed update, incorporating recent advances in sedation for gastrointestinal endoscopy.This guideline covers aspects from pre-assessment of the elective 'well' patient to patients with significant comorbidity requiring emergency procedures. Types of sedation are discussed, procedure and room requirements and the recovery period, providing guidance to enhance safety and minimise complications. These guidelines are intended to inform practising clinicians and all staff involved in the delivery of gastrointestinal endoscopy with an expectation that this guideline will be revised in 5-years' time.

High quality colonoscopy: using textbook process as a composite quality measure

BACKGROUND : High quality colonoscopy is fundamental to good patient outcomes. "Textbook outcome" has proven to be a feasible multidimensional measure for quality assurance between surgical centers. In this study, we sought to establish the "textbook process" (TP) as a new composite measure for the optimal colonoscopy process and assessed how frequently TP was attained in clinical practice and the variation in TP between endoscopists. METHODS : To reach consensus on the definition of TP, international expert endoscopists completed a modified Delphi consensus process. The achievement of TP was then applied to clinical practice. Prospectively collected data in two endoscopy services were retrospectively evaluated. Data on colonoscopies performed for symptoms or surveillance between 1 January 2018 and 1 August 2021 were analyzed. RESULTS : The Delphi consensus process was completed by 20 of 27 invited experts (74.1 %). TP was defined as a colonoscopy fulfilling the following items: explicit colonoscopy indication; successful cecal intubation; adequate bowel preparation; adequate withdrawal time; acceptable patient comfort score; provision of post-polypectomy surveillance recommendations in line with guidelines; and the absence of the use of reversal agents, early adverse events, readmission, and mortality. In the two endoscopy services studied, TP was achieved in 5962/8227 colonoscopies (72.5 %). Of 48 endoscopists performing colonoscopy, attainment of TP varied significantly, ranging per endoscopist from 41.0 % to 89.1 %. CONCLUSION : This study proposes a new composite measure for colonoscopy, namely "textbook process." TP gives a comprehensive summary of performance and demonstrates significant variation between endoscopists, illustrating the potential benefit of TP as a measure in future quality assessment programs.

Development and validation of a simulation-based assessment tool in colonoscopy

BACKGROUND

Colonoscopy is difficult to learn. Virtual reality simulation training is helpful, but how and when novices should progress to patient-based training has yet to be established. To date, there is no assessment tool for credentialing novice endoscopists prior to clinical practice. The aim of this study was to develop such an assessment tool based on metrics provided by the simulator. The metrics used for the assessment tool should be able to discriminate between novices, intermediates, and experts and include essential checklist items for patient safety.

METHODS

The validation process was conducted based on the Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing. An expert panel decided upon three essential checklist items for patient safety based on Lawshe's method: perforation, hazardous tension to the bowel wall, and cecal intubation. A power calculation was performed. In this study, the Simbionix GI Mentor II simulator was used. Metrics with discriminatory ability were identified with variance analysis and combined to form an aggregate score. Based on this score and the essential items, pass/fail standards were set and reliability was tested.

RESULTS

Twenty-four participants (eight novices, eight intermediates, and eight expert endoscopists) performed two simulated colonoscopies. Four metrics with discriminatory ability were identified. The aggregate score ranged from 4.2 to 51.2 points. Novices had a mean score of 10.00 (SD 5.13), intermediates 24.63 (SD 7.91), and experts 30.72 (SD 11.98). The difference in score between novices and the other two groups was statistically significant (p<0.01). Although expert endoscopists had a higher score, the difference was not statistically significant (p=0.40). Reliability was good (Cronbach's alpha=0.86). A pass/fail score was defined at 17.1 points with correct completion of three essential checklist items, resulting in three experts and three intermediates failing and one novice passing the assessment.

CONCLUSION

We established a valid and reliable assessment tool with a pass/fail standard on the simulator. We suggest using the assessment after simulation-based training before commencing work-based learning.

Unlocking quality in endoscopic mucosal resection

A review of the development of the key performance metrics of endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR), learning from the experience of the establishment of widespread colonoscopy quality measurements. Potential future performance markers for both colonoscopy and EMR are also evaluated to ensure continued high quality performance is maintained with a focus service framework and predictors of patient outcome.

Randomized controlled trial of EndoRings assisted colonoscopy versus standard colonoscopy

OBJECTIVES

The EndoRings device is a distal attachment consisting of two layers of circular flexible rings that evert mucosal folds. The aim of this study was to investigate whether EndoRing assisted colonoscopy (ER) improves polyp and adenoma detection compared to standard colonoscopy (SC).

METHODS

Multicenter, parallel group, randomized controlled trial.

RESULTS

Total of 556 patients randomized to ER (n = 275) or SC (n = 281). Colonoscopy completed in 532/556 (96%) cases. EndoRings removed in 74/275 (27%) patients. Total number of polyps in ER limb 582 vs. 515 in SC limb, P = 0.04. Total number of adenomas in ER limb 361 vs. 343 for SC limb, P = 0.49. A statistically significant difference in the mean number of polyps per patient in both the intention to treat (1.84 SC vs. 2.10 ER, P = 0.027) and per protocol (PP) (1.84 SC vs. 2.25 ER, P = 0.004).

CONCLUSIONS

Our study shows promise for the EndoRings device to improve polyp detection.

Colonoscopy quality improvement after initial training: A cross-sectional study of intensive short-term training

Background and study aims High-quality is crucial for the effectiveness of colonoscopy and can be achieved by high-quality training and verified with assessment of key performance indicators (KPIs) for colonoscopy such as cecum intubation rate (CIR), adenoma detection rate (ADR) and adequate polyp resection. Typically, trainees achieve adequate CIR after 275 procedures, but little is known about learning curves for KPIs after initial training. Methods This cross-sectional study includes work-up colonoscopies after a positive screening test with fecal occult blood testing (FIT) or sigmoidoscopy, performed by either trainees after 300 training colonoscopies or by consultants. Outcome measures were KPIs. We assessed inter-endoscopist variation in trainees and learning curves for trainees as a group. We also compared KPIs for trainees and consultants as a group.  Results Data from 6,655 colonoscopies performed by 21 trainees and 921 colonoscopies performed by 17 consultants were included. Most trainees achieved target standards for main KPIs. With time, trainees shortened cecum intubation time and withdrawal time without decreasing their ADR, reduced the proportion of painful colonoscopies, and increased the adequate polyp resection rate (all P  < 0.01). Compared to consultants, trainees had higher CIR (97.7 % vs. 96.3 %, P  = 0.02), ADR after positive FIT (57.6 % vs. 50.3 %, P  < 0.01), and proximal ADR after sigmoidoscopy screening (41.1 % vs. 29.8 %; P  < 0.01), higher adequate polyp resection rate (94.9 % vs. 93.1 %, P  = 0.01) and fewer serious adverse events (0.65 % vs. 1.41 %, P  = 0.02). Conclusions Trainees performed high-quality colonoscopies and achieved international target standards. Several KPIs continuously improved after initial training. Trainees outperformed consultants on several KPIs.

Methods for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Quantification: A Focus on Hands and Fingers Kinematics

Gastrointestinal endoscopy is a complex procedure requiring the mastery of several competencies and skills. This procedure is in increasing demand, but there exist important management and ethical issues regarding the training of new endoscopists. Nowadays, this requires the direct involvement of real patients and a high chance of the endoscopists themselves suffering from musculoskeletal conditions. Colonoscopy quantification can be useful for improving these two issues. This paper reviews the literature regarding efforts to quantify gastrointestinal procedures and focuses on the capture of hand and finger kinematics. Current technologies to support the capture of data from hand and finger movements are analyzed and tested, considering smart gloves and vision-based solutions. Manus VR Prime II and Stretch Sense MoCap reveal the main problems with smart gloves related to the adaptation of the gloves to different hand sizes and comfortability. Regarding vision-based solutions, Vero Vicon cameras show the main problem in gastrointestinal procedure scenarios: occlusion. In both cases, calibration and data interoperability are also key issues that limit possible applications. In conclusion, new advances are needed to quantify hand and finger kinematics in an appropriate way to support further developments.

Adenoma Detection Rate and Risk for Interval Postcolonoscopy Colorectal Cancer in Fecal Immunochemical Test-Based Screening : A Population-Based Cohort Study

BACKGROUND

The adenoma detection rate (ADR) is an essential quality indicator for endoscopists performing colonoscopies for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening as it is associated with postcolonoscopy CRCs (PCCRCs). Currently, data on ADRs of endoscopists performing colonoscopies in fecal immunochemical testing (FIT)-based screening, the most common screening method, are scarce. Also, the association between the ADR and PCCRC has not been demonstrated in this setting.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the association between the ADR and PCCRC risk in colonoscopies done after a positive FIT result.

DESIGN

Population-based cohort.

SETTING

Dutch, FIT-based, CRC screening program.

PARTICIPANTS

Patients undergoing colonoscopy, done by accredited endoscopists, after a positive FIT result.

MEASUREMENTS

Quality indicator performance and PCCRC incidence for colonoscopies in FIT-positive screenees were assessed. The PCCRCs were classified as interval, a cancer detected before recommended surveillance, or noninterval. The association between ADR and interval PCCRC was evaluated with a multivariable Cox regression model and PCCRC incidence was determined for different ADRs.

RESULTS

362 endoscopists performed 116 360 colonoscopies with a median ADR of 67%. In total, 209 interval PCCRCs were identified. The ADR was associated with interval PCCRC, with an adjusted hazard ratio of 0.95 (95% CI, 0.92 to 0.97) per 1% increase in ADR. For every 1000 patients undergoing colonoscopy, the expected number of interval PCCRC diagnoses after 5 years was approximately 2 for endoscopists with ADRs of 70%, compared with more than 2.5, almost 3.5, and more than 4.5 for endoscopists with ADRs of 65%, 60%, and 55%, respectively.

LIMITATION

The relative short duration of follow-up (median, 52 months) could be considered a limitation.

CONCLUSION

The ADR of endoscopists is inversely associated with the risk for interval PCCRC in FIT-positive colonoscopies. Endoscopists performing colonoscopy in FIT-based screening should aim for markedly higher ADRs compared with primary colonoscopy.

PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE

None.

Risk factors for underestimation of patient pain in outpatient colonoscopy

BACKGROUND

Adequate management of patient pain and discomfort during colonoscopy is crucial to obtaining a high-quality examination. We aimed to investigate the ability of endoscopists and endoscopy assistants to accurately assess patient pain in colonoscopy.

METHODS

This was a single-center, cross-sectional study including patients scheduled for an outpatient colonoscopy. Procedure-related pain, as experienced by the patient, was scored on a verbal rating scale (VRS). Endoscopists and endoscopy assistants rated patient pain likewise. Cohen's kappa was used to measure the agreement between ratings and logistic regression applied to test for potential predictors associated with underestimation of moderate-severe pain.

RESULTS

In total, 785 patients [median age: 54 years; females: n = 413] were included. Mild, moderate, and severe pain was reported in 378/785 (48%), 168/785 (22%), and 111/785 (14%) procedures respectively. Inter-rater reliability of patient pain comparing patients with endoscopists was κ = 0.29, p < .001 and for patients with endoscopy assistants κ = 0.37, p < .001. In the 279 patients reporting moderate/severe pain, multivariable analysis showed that male gender (OR = 1.79), normal BMI (OR = 1.71), no history of abdominal surgery (OR = 1.81), and index-colonoscopy (OR = 1.81) were factors significantly associated with a risk for underestimation of moderate/severe pain by endoscopists. Young age (OR = 2.05) was the only corresponding factor valid for endoscopy assistants.

CONCLUSIONS

In a colonoscopy, estimation of patient pain by endoscopists and endoscopy assistants is often inaccurate. Endoscopists need to pay specific attention to subgroups of patients, such as male gender, and normal BMI, among whom there seems to be an important risk of underestimation of moderate-severe pain.

Colonoscopy skills improvement training improves patient comfort during colonoscopy

INTRODUCTION

We aimed to assess the effect of Colonoscopy Skills Improvement (CSI) training on patient comfort and sedation-related complications during colonoscopy.

METHODS

This retrospective cohort study was performed on 19 endoscopists practicing in a Canadian tertiary care center who completed CSI training between October 2014 and May 2016. Data from 50 procedures immediately prior to, immediately after, and eight months following CSI training were included for each endoscopist. The primary outcome variable was intraprocedural comfort, and secondary outcomes included intraprocedural hypotension and hypoxia. Data were extracted from an electronic medical record and analyzed using SPSS version 20.0. Univariate analysis and stepwise multivariable logistic regression were performed to determine if there was an association between patient comfort and CSI training. Predictors of these outcomes including patient age, gender, sedation use and dosing, procedure completion, quality of bowel preparation, endoscopist experience, and specialty were included in the analysis.

RESULTS

2533 colonoscopies were included in the study. The mean dose of sedatives was reduced immediately following CSI training and at 8 months for both Fentanyl (75.4 mcg v. 67.8 mcg v. 65.9 mcg, p < 0.001) and Midazolam (2.57 mg v. 2.27 mg v. 2.19 mg, p < 0.001). The percentage of patients deemed to have a comfortable exam improved following endoscopist participation in CSI training and remained improved at 8 months (55.1% v. 70.2% v. 69.8%, p < 0.001). No significant change in rates of intraprocedural hypoxia or hypotension were noted following CSI training.

CONCLUSION

CSI training is associated with improved patient comfort and reduced sedation requirements during colonoscopy.

Adherence to European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Quality Performance Measures for Upper and Lower Gastrointestinal Endoscopy: A Nationwide Survey From the Italian Society of Digestive Endoscopy

Background

The quality of gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy has been recently identified as a major priority being associated with many outcomes and patient's experience.

Objective

To assess adherence of endoscopists to the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) quality performance measures for upper and lower GI endoscopy in Italy.

Methods

All endoscopist members of the Italian Society of Digestive Endoscopy (SIED) were invited from October 2018 to December 2018 to participate to a self-administered questionnaire-based survey. The questionnaire included questions on demographics and professional characteristics, and the recent ESGE quality performance measures for upper and lower GI endoscopy.

Results

A total of 392 endoscopists participated in the study. Only a minority (18.2%) of participants recorded the duration of esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) and 51% provided accurate photo documentation in the minimum standard of 90% of cases. Almost all endoscopists correctly used Prague and Los Angeles classifications (87.8% and 98.2%, respectively), as well as Seattle and Management of precancerous conditions and lesions in the stomach (MAPS) biopsy protocols (86.5% and 91.4%, respectively). However, only 52.8% of participants monitored complications after therapeutic EGD, and 40.8% recorded patients with a diagnosis of Barrett's esophagus (BE). With regard to colonoscopy, almost all endoscopists (93.9%) used the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale for measuring bowel preparation quality and reported a cecal intubation rate ≥90%. However, about a quarter (26.2%) of participants reported an adenoma detection rate of <25%, only 52.8% applied an appropriate polypectomy technique, 48% monitored complications after the procedure, and 12.4% measured patient's experience.

Conclusion

The adherence of endoscopists to ESGE performance measures for GI endoscopy is sub-optimal in Italy. There is a need to disseminate and implement performance measures and endorse educational and scientific interventions on the quality of endoscopy.

The Newcastle ENDOPREM™: a validated patient reported experience measure for gastrointestinal endoscopy

OBJECTIVES

Measuring patient experience of gastrointestinal (GI) procedures is a key component of evaluation of quality of care. Current measures of patient experience within GI endoscopy are largely clinician derived and measured; however, these do not fully represent the experiences of patients themselves. It is important to measure the entirety of experience and not just experience directly during the procedure. We aimed to develop a patient-reported experience measure (PREM) for GI procedures.

DESIGN

Phase 1: semi-structured interviews were conducted in patients who had recently undergone GI endoscopy or CT colonography (CTC) (included as a comparator). Thematic analysis identified the aspects of experience important to patients. Phase 2: a question bank was developed from phase 1 findings, and iteratively refined through rounds of cognitive interviews with patients who had undergone GI procedures, resulting in a pilot PREM. Phase 3: patients who had attended for GI endoscopy or CTC were invited to complete the PREM. Psychometric properties were investigated. Phase 4 involved item reduction and refinement.

RESULTS

Phase 1: interviews with 35 patients identified six overarching themes: anxiety, expectations, information & communication, embarrassment & dignity, choice & control and comfort. Phase 2: cognitive interviews refined questionnaire items and response options. Phase 3: the PREM was distributed to 1650 patients with 799 completing (48%). Psychometric properties were found to be robust. Phase 4: final questionnaire refined including 54 questions assessing patient experience across five temporal procedural stages.

CONCLUSION

This manuscript gives an overview of the development and validation of the Newcastle ENDOPREM™, which assesses all aspects of the GI procedure experience from the patient perspective. It may be used to measure patient experience in clinical care and, in research, to compare patients' experiences of different endoscopic interventions.

Coprocytobiology: A Technical Review of Cytological Colorectal Cancer Screening in Fecal Samples

GRAPHICAL ABSTRACT

Impact of sedation on the Performance Indicator of Colonic Intubation

BACKGROUND

The Performance Indicator of Colonic Intubation (PICI) is a new measure of high-quality colonic intubation. Adequate PICI was defined as cecal intubation without significant discomfort and use of minimal sedation. This study assessed achievement of PICI within the Dutch colorectal cancer (CRC) screening program, and determined the association between PICI and adenoma detection rate (ADR). PICI achievement when using the Dutch median midazolam dose was also assessed.

METHODS

This retrospective study was conducted within the Dutch fecal immunochemical test-based CRC screening program. Colonoscopy and pathology data were prospectively collected in a national database. Data between January 2016 through January 2018 were analyzed. Adequate PICI was defined as successful cecal intubation, Gloucester Comfort Scale (GCS) of 1 - 3, and use of ≤ 2.5 mg midazolam.

RESULTS

107 328 colonoscopies were performed during the study period. Adequate PICI was achieved in 49 500 colonoscopies (46.1 %). In colonoscopies with inadequate PICI, inadequacy was due to higher sedation doses in 87.8 %. Adequate PICI was associated with higher ADR (odds ratio 1.16, 95 % confidence interval 1.12 - 1.20). When using a cutoff of 5 mg midazolam, median dose in this Dutch population, adequate PICI was achieved in 95 410 colonoscopies (88.9  %).

CONCLUSION

PICI appeared to be heavily dependent on sedation practice. Because of wide variation in sedation practice between individual endoscopists and countries, the benefit of PICI as a quality indicator is limited.

A randomised study of comfort during bronchoscopy comparing conscious sedation and anaesthetist-controlled general anaesthesia, including the utility of bispectral index monitoring

Background

The difference in patient comfort with conscious sedation versus general anaesthesia for bronchoscopy has not been adequately assessed in a randomised trial. This study aimed to assess if patient comfort during bronchoscopy with conscious sedation is noninferior to general anaesthesia.

Methods

96 subjects were randomised to receive conscious sedation or general anaesthesia for bronchoscopy. The primary outcome was subject comfort. Secondary outcomes included willingness to undergo a repeat procedure if necessary and level of sedation assessed clinically and by bispectral index (BIS) monitoring.

Results

There was no significant difference between subject comfort scores (difference -0.01, 95% CI -0.63-0.61 on a 10-point scale; p=0.97) or willingness to undergo a repeat procedure (97.7% versus 91.8%, 95% CI -4.8-15.5%; p=0.37). Deeper levels of sedation in the general anaesthesia cohort was confirmed with both clinical and BIS monitoring. There was no significant difference in diagnostic accuracy (conscious sedation 93.9%, 95% CI 80.4-98.3% versus general anaesthesia 86.5%, 95% CI 72.0-94.1%; p=0.43). There were more complications (29.6%, 95% CI 18.2-44.2% versus 6.1%, 95% CI 2.1-16.5%; p<0.01) in the general anaesthesia group. There was no relationship between high BIS scores and subject discomfort. BIS levels <40 during a procedure were associated with increased complications.

Conclusion

Conscious sedation is not inferior to general anaesthesia in providing patient comfort during bronchoscopy, despite lighter sedation, and is associated with fewer complications and comparable diagnostic accuracy. BIS monitoring may have a role in preventing complications associated with deeper sedation.

Patients' perception of colonoscopy and acceptance of colonoscopy based IBD related colorectal cancer surveillance

OBJECTIVES

Patients with Inflammatory Bowel Disease (IBD) are at an increased risk of colorectal cancer (CRC). Current surveillance for CRC involves often uncomfortable colonoscopy. To assess IBD patients' perception of colonoscopy and examine preferences for hypothetical alternatives.

METHODS

IBD patients in clinical remission rated acceptable frequency of colonoscopy and hypothetical alternatives to colonoscopy-based surveillance (preference of yearly blood, yearly stool or 5-yearly imaging tests over 5-yearly colonoscopy). Participants rated discomfort of the last colonoscopy was compared with hospital records.

RESULTS

Of 282 patients with recollection of colonoscopy 65.8% rated the discomfort as moderate to severe, which correlated weakly with endoscopists' perception (r = 0.225; p = 0.015). There were no significant differences in patients' or endoscopists' perceptions of discomfort between sedated and unsedated colonoscopies. Undergoing a yearly colonoscopy was acceptable to 49.5%. Experienced discomfort did not correlate with patients' views on acceptable frequency of surveillance colonoscopy. Over 95% of patients would prefer blood, stool, or imaging tests over colonoscopy but nearly half expected sensitivities ≥95%.

CONCLUSION

A large proportion of IBD patients experienced colonoscopy as moderate to severely uncomfortable but would still accept colonoscopy surveillance frequency according to current guidance. Participants expected sensitivities ≥95% for potential alternatives to colonoscopy-based surveillance programs.

EXPERT OPINION

IBD patients frequently experience colonoscopy as uncomfortable but accept colonoscopy as the gold standard for colorectal cancer surveillance. The currently suggested frequencies of surveillance by colonoscopy are acceptable to IBD patients. They do however express a clear preference for non-invasive surveillance techniques. Some promising initial results have been obtained based on faecal or blood sampling. However, these have yet to be tested in large prospective studies to determine their sensitivity and specificity. IBD patients expect these non-invasive tests to meet high standards for sensitivity. In our view it is feasible that analogue to faecal immunochemistry based testing for general population bowel cancer screening non-invasive IBD surveillance techniques will emerge. This could lead to a reduction in the need for colonoscopy to those testing positive on faecal or blood based surveillance.

Are adenoma and serrated polyp detection rates correlated with endoscopists' sensitivity of optical diagnosis?

INTRODUCTION : Endoscopists with a high adenoma detection rate (ADR) and proximal serrated polyp detection rate (PSPDR) detect these polyps more frequently, which may be attributable to better recognition of their endoscopic features. Little is known about the association between endoscopic lesion detection and differentiation skills. Therefore, we evaluated the correlation between the ADR, PSPDR, and the sensitivity of optical diagnosis for adenomas and serrated polyps.

METHODS

We performed an exploratory post-hoc analysis of the DISCOUNT-2 study, including complete colonoscopies after a positive fecal immunochemical test (FIT) performed by endoscopists who performed ≥ 50 colonoscopies. The correlations between the ADR, PSPDR, and the sensitivity of optical diagnosis were calculated using Pearson's rho correlation coefficient.

RESULTS

24 endoscopists performed ≥ 50 colonoscopies, resulting in a total of 2889 colonoscopies. The overall ADR was 84.5 % (range 71.4 % - 95.3 %) and overall PSPDR was 13.7 % (4.3 % - 29.0 %). The sensitivity of optical diagnosis for adenomas and serrated polyps were 94.5 % (83.3 % - 100 %) and 74.0 % (37.5 % - 94.1 %), respectively. No correlation could be demonstrated between the ADR and the sensitivity of optical diagnosis for adenomas (-0.20; P = 0.35) or between the PSPDR and the sensitivity of optical diagnosis for serrated polyps (-0.12; P = 0.57).

CONCLUSIONS

In a homogeneous FIT-positive population, no correlation between the ADR, PSPDR, and the sensitivity of optical diagnosis for adenomas and serrated polyps could be demonstrated. These exploratory results suggest that lesion detection and differentiation require different endoscopic skills. Further prospective studies are needed; until then, monitoring of both performance indicators is important to secure optimal efficacy of FIT-based colorectal cancer screening.

Impact of a national basic skills in colonoscopy course on trainee performance: An interrupted time series analysis

BACKGROUND

The Joint Advisory Group on Gastrointestinal Endoscopy basic skills in colonoscopy (BSC) course was introduced in 2009 to improve colonoscopy training within the United Kingdom, but its impact on trainee performance is unknown.

AIM

To assess whether attendance of the BSC could improve colonoscopy performance.

METHODS

Trainees awarded colonoscopy certification between 2011-2016 were stratified into 3 groups according to pre-course procedure count (< 70, 70-140 and > 140). Study outcomes, comprising the unassisted caecal intubation rate (CIR) and the performance indicator of colonic intubation (PICI), were studied over the 50 procedures pre and post- course. Interrupted time series analyses were performed to detect step-change changes attributable to the course.

RESULTS

A total of 369 trainees with pre-course procedure counts of < 70 (n = 118), 70-140 (n = 121) and > 140 (n = 130) were included. Over the 50 pre-course procedures, significant linear improvements in CIR were found, with average increases of 4.2, 3.6 and 1.7 percentage points (pp) per 10 procedures performed in the < 70, 70-140 and > 140 groups respectively (all P < 0.001). The < 70 procedures group saw a significant step-change improvement in CIR, increasing from 46% in the last pre-course procedure, to 51% in the first procedure post-course (P = 0.005). The CIR step-change was not significant in the 70-140 (68% to 71%; P = 0.239) or > 140 (86% to 87%; P = 0.354) groups. For PICI, significant step-change improvements were seen in all three groups, with average increases of 5.6 pp (P < 0.001), 5.4 pp (P = 0.003) and 3.9 pp (P = 0.014) respectively.

CONCLUSION

Attendance of the BSC was associated with a significant step-change improvement in PICI, regardless of prior procedural experience. However, CIR data suggest that the optimal timing of course attendance appears to be at earlier stages of training (< 70 procedures).

Quality indicators in diagnostic upper gastrointestinal endoscopy

Upper gastrointestinal (UGI) endoscopy contributes a major clinical service with consistently growing demand around the world. Its utility corresponds to varying epidemiological issues throughout the globe, with cancer screening and surveillance being of the utmost priority. Despite high accuracy in neoplasia detection, UGI endoscopy remains a highly operator-dependent procedure, characterized by a substantial rate of missed pathology. Despite an overall lack of high-quality performance measures, there is an increased level of awareness about the need for quality control of this procedure, which is reflected in several guidelines and position statements published in recent years. It is widely recognized that quality assessment should go beyond mere technical aspects of the examination, and include both pre- and post-procedural factors. By this means, quality control encompasses the entire patient experience with the health care provider, from appropriate indication and physical assessment, through high-quality endoscopy service, to appropriate follow up and patient satisfaction. This article aims to review the available and emerging quality metrics for UGI endoscopy, taken mostly from Western endoscopy societies, with references to Asian recommendations where appropriate. The paper is limited solely to diagnostic UGI endoscopy and does not include performance measures for therapeutic procedures.

Causes of Post-Colonoscopy Colorectal Cancers Based on World Endoscopy Organization System of Analysis

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Postcolonoscopy colorectal cancer (PCCRC) is CRC diagnosed after a colonoscopy in which no cancer was found. A consensus article from the World Endoscopy Organization (WEO) proposed an approach for investigating and categorizing PCCRCs detected within 4 years of a colonoscopy. We aimed to identify cases of PCCRC and the factors that cause them, test the WEO system of categorization, quantify the proportion of avoidable PCCRCs, and propose a target rate for PCCRCs detected within 3 years of a colonoscopy that did not detect CRC.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective analysis of 107 PCCRCs identified at a single medical center in England from January 1, 2010, through December 31, 2017 using coding and endoscopy data. For each case, we reviewed clinical, pathology, radiology, and endoscopy findings. Using the WEO recommendations, we performed a root-cause analysis of each case, categorizing lesions as follows: possible missed lesion, prior examination adequate; possible missed lesion, prior examination inadequate; detected lesion, not resected; or likely incomplete resection of previously identified lesion. We determined whether PCCRCs could be attributed to the colonoscopist for technical or decision-making reasons, and whether the PCCRC was avoidable or unavoidable, based on the WEO categorization and size of tumor. The endoscopy reporting system provided performance data for individual endoscopists.

RESULTS

Of the PCCRCs identified, 43% were in high-risk patients (those with inflammatory bowel disease, previous CRC, previous multiple large polyps, or hereditary cancer syndromes) and 66% were located distal to the hepatic flexure. There was no correlation between postcolonoscopy colorectal tumor size and time to diagnosis after index colonoscopy. Bowel preparation was poor in 19% of index colonoscopies, and only 36% of complete colonoscopies had adequate photodocumentation of completion. Development of 73% of PCCRCs was determined to be affected by technical endoscopic factors, 17% of PCCRCs by administrative factors (follow-up procedures delayed/not booked by administrative staff), and 27% of PCCRCs by decision-making factors. Twenty-seven percent of PCCRCs were categorized as possible missed lesion, prior examination adequate; 58% as possible missed lesion, prior examination inadequate; 8% as detected lesion, not resected; and 7% as incomplete resection of previously observed lesion; 89% were deemed to be avoidable.

CONCLUSIONS

In a retrospective analysis of PCCRCs, using the WEO system of categorization, we found 43% to occur in high-risk patients; this might be reduced with more vigilant surveillance. Measures are needed to reduce technical, decision-making, and administrative factors. We found that 89% of PCCRCs may be avoidable. If half of avoidable PCCRCs could be prevented, the target rate of 2% for the PCCRC-3y (cancer diagnosed between 6 and 36 months after index colonoscopy) benchmark would be achievable.

Interobserver variability in comfort scores for screening colonoscopy

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the agreement in comfort scores between patients, endoscopist and specialist screening practitioner (SSP) for colonoscopy, and which factors influence comfort.

DESIGN

Prospective observational study.

SETTING

Single-centre UK Bowel Cancer Screening Program colonoscopy service from April 2017 to March 2018.

PATIENTS

498 patients undergoing bowel cancer screening colonoscopy, with median age of 68 (IQR 64-71). 320 (64.3%) were men.

INTERVENTION

All patients underwent screening colonoscopy.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE

Comfort scores on a validated 1 (best) to 5 (worst) ordinal scale were assigned for each colonoscopy by the patient, endoscopist and SSP. Inter-rater agreement of discomfort scores between endoscopist, patient and SSP was investigated using Cohen's Kappa statistic. Multivariate ordinal logistic regression was used to investigate the effects of patient and colonoscopy factors on comfort scores.

RESULTS

SSPs had superior comfort score agreement with patients (0.638; 'moderate agreement') than endoscopists had with the same patients (0.526; 'weak agreement'). Male patients reported lower scores than female patients (OR 0.483, OR 0.499 [95% CI 0.344 to 0.723]; p<0.001). Endoscopists reported lower scores when there was better bowel prep (OR 0.512 [95% CI 0.279 to 0.938]; p=0.030). Agreement was worse at higher levels of discomfort.

CONCLUSION

There is variability in perceived comfort levels between healthcare providers and patients during screening colonoscopy, which is greater at worse levels of discomfort. Endoscopists who undertake screening colonoscopies may wish to consider both patient and healthcare provider comfort scores in order to improve patient experience while ensuring optimal quality assurance.

The performance indicator of colonic intubation (PICI) in a FIT-based colorectal cancer screening program

Objective: Cecal intubation rate (CIR) is known to be inversely associated with interval colorectal cancer (CRC) risk. Cecal intubation may be achieved by the use of force and sedation jeopardizing patient safety. The Performance Indicator of Colonic Intubation (PICI) is defined as the proportion of colonoscopies achieving cecal intubation with use of ≤2 mg midazolam and no-mild patient-experienced discomfort. We aimed (i) to measure the variation of PICI between colonoscopists and colonoscopy units; (ii) to assess the correlation between the individual components of PICI; and (iii) to evaluate the association between PICI and commonly used performance indicators. Materials and methods: For the period 1 July 2015 through 30 June 2017 of the prevalent round of the Danish FIT-based CRC screening program, we included colonoscopies performed at four units in the Central Denmark Region within 60 days after a positive FIT-test. The PICI variation was evaluated using rates and ranges. Correlations between individual PICI components were assessed using Pearson correlation coefficients. Polyp detection rate (PDR), Adenoma detection rate (ADR), Polyp retrieval rate (PRR) and Withdrawal time (WT) were assessed within PICI quartiles. Results: The overall PICI was 78.7% with substantial variation between colonoscopists (40.0-91.9%) and units (72.6-82.0%). CIR was significantly correlated with patient-experienced comfort (r = 0.49, n = 73, p < .0001) and we observed that colonoscopists with a PICI between 79.9% and 84.3%) had the highest ADR. Conclusion: We found a substantial variation in PICI between colonoscopists and between colonoscopy units, which may reflect potential for quality improvements.

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

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

Performance indicators in colonoscopy after certification for independent practice: outcomes and predictors of competence

BACKGROUND

Robust real-world performance data of newly independent colonoscopists are lacking. In the United Kingdom, provisional colonoscopy certification (PCC) marks the transition from training to newly independent practice. We aimed to assess changes in key performance indicators (KPIs) such as cecal intubation rate (CIR) in the periods pre- and post-PCC, particularly regarding rates and predictors of trainees exhibiting a drop in performance (DIP), defined as CIR <90% in the first 50 procedures post-PCC.

METHODS

A prospective United Kingdom-wide observational study of Joint Advisory Group on Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Electronic Training System (JETS) e-portfolio colonoscopy entries (257,800) from trainees awarded PCC between July 2011 and 2016 was undertaken. Moving average analyses were used to study KPI trends relative to PCC. Pre-PCC trainee, trainer, and training environment factors were compared between DIP and non-DIP cohorts to identify predictors of DIP.

RESULTS

Seven hundred thirty-three trainees from 180 centers were awarded PCC after a median of 265 procedures and 3.1 years. Throughout the early post-PCC period, average CIRs surpassed the national 90% standard. Despite this, not all trainees achieved this standard post-PCC, with DIP observed in 18.4%. DIP was not influenced by trainer presence and diminished after 100 additional procedures. On multivariable analysis, pre-PCC CIRs and trainer specialty were predictive of DIP. Trainees with DIP incurred higher post-PCC rates of moderate to severe discomfort despite requiring higher analgesic dosages and were more likely to require trainer assistance in failed procedures.

CONCLUSIONS

The current PCC requirements are appropriate for diagnostic colonoscopy. It is possible to identify predictors of underperformance in trainees, which may be of value to training leads and could improve the patient experience.

Quality assurance of colonoscopy within the Dutch national colorectal cancer screening program

Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening is capable of reducing CRC-related morbidity and mortality. Colonoscopy is the reference standard to detect CRC, also providing the opportunity to detect and resect its precursor lesions: colorectal polyps. Therefore, colonoscopy is either used as a primary screening tool or as a subsequent procedure after a positive triage test in screening programs based on non-invasive stool testing or sigmoidoscopy. However, in both settings, colonoscopy is not fully protective for the occurrence of post-colonoscopy CRCs (PCCRCs). Because most PCCRCs are the result of colonoscopy-related factors, a high-quality procedure is of paramount importance to assure optimal effectiveness of CRC screening programs. For this reason, at the start of the Dutch fecal immunochemical test (FIT)-based screening program, quality criteria for endoscopists performing colonoscopies in FIT-positive screenees, as well as for endoscopy centers, were defined. In conjunction, an accreditation and auditing system was designed and implemented. In this report, we describe the quality assurance process for endoscopists participating in the Dutch national CRC screening program, including a detailed description of the evidence-based quality criteria. We believe that our experience might serve as an example for colonoscopy quality assurance programs in other CRC screening programs.

Effectiveness and safety of gastrointestinal endoscopy during a specific sedation training program for non-anesthesiologists

INTRODUCTION

sedation is a key component for the improvement of sedation quality. A correct administration requires appropriate training. We performed a study to compare sedation effectiveness, safety and patient satisfaction when administered by gastroenterologists, with and without specific training.

METHODS

a training program enrolled a group of gastroenterologists (trained group, n = 4) and their results were compared to those from a non-trained group (n = 3). ASA 1-3 patients who had undergone sedation by a gastroenterologist using midazolam and fentanyl were included over a period of 30 months. Safety was assessed in terms of the complication rate, effectiveness was assessed via the rate of completed endoscopic procedures and patient satisfaction was evaluated via a phone interview the day after the procedure.

RESULTS

a total of 3,475 patients were sedated by gastroenterologists during the study period. Significant differences were found that favored the trained group for completed procedures (5.6% vs 8.9%). A lower rate of excessive sedation (1.3% vs 8.61%), hypoxemia (0.72% vs 2.49%) and post-procedural pain (1.8% vs 4.3%) were also achieved. Patient satisfaction surpassed 99.5% and there were no significant differences between groups.

CONCLUSIONS

our sedation training program improved the effectiveness and safety outcomes when compared to sedation administered by gastroenterologists without this specific training.

A descriptive monitoring study of a non-anesthetist sedation quality program

INTRODUCTION

sedation substantially improves the quality of digestive endoscopy procedures but may result in severe complications.

METHODS

a joint commission-based multidisciplinary protocol was used to define a protocol for sedation by non-anesthesiologists. ASA 4 patients were excluded, as well as patients with a difficult airway, complex procedures and deep sedation. Quality based on the analysis of 9 indicators were monitored. Incomplete procedures were also monitored in order to assess efficacy.

RESULTS

patient safety was established based on a very low incidence of complications and a rate of respiratory events of 1.07. Furthermore, a low rate of hypotension and bradycardia was found, as well as a low rate of pain, either during or after endoscopy and an incidence of unexpected admissions lower than 0.5%. The quality indicators measured reflect the evolution of the results of the program.

CONCLUSIONS

ongoing sedation program monitoring in endoscopy allows the control of different quality dimensions and the implementation of steps for process improvement.

Quality and competence in endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography - Where are we 50 years later?

Training in endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) requires the development of technical, cognitive, and integrative skills well beyond those needed for standard endoscopic procedures. So far, there are limited data regarding what constitutes competency in ERCP, including achievement and maintenance. Recent studies have highlighted overall procedural numbers are not enough to warrant competency, although more is better. We performed a comprehensive literature search until June 2017 using predetermined search terms to identify relevant articles and summarized their results as a narrative review. Selective native papilla deep cannulation should be used as a benchmark for assessing successful cannulation. Accurate and validated ERCP performance measures are needed to develop a curriculum that allows transition from numbers-based competency. However, available guidelines fail to state what degree of hands-on involvement is required by the trainee for the case to be counted in their overall procedural numbers. Qualitative assessment of competency should be done by trained raters using specially designed assessment tools. Competence continues to increase with practice following formal training in a fairly steady manner. The learning curve for overall common bile duct cannulation success may be a readily available surrogate for individual trainee progression and may correspond to learning curves for therapeutic interventions.

Prospective analysis of the complications, efficacy, and satisfaction level on the sedation performed by anaesthetists in gastrointestinal endoscopy

OBJECTIVE

To describe the anaesthesia/sedation complications during gastrointestinal endoscopy, as well as comparing scheduled procedures versus urgent procedures.

METHODS

A protocol was developed to define the anaesthesia/sedation in gastrointestinal endoscopy, where the anaesthetist should always be present. These include ASA 3 and 4 patients, complex tests such as polypectomies, endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) or endoscopic ultrasound, deep sedation, or patients with probable difficult airway management. An analysis was made of the safety based on the complications recorded from the data directly collected automatically from the monitors, both during the sedation and in the recovery unit. An analysis was also performed on the risk factors associated with cardiorespiratory complications, the effectiveness based on the completed tests and the overall level of satisfaction through an interview using a satisfaction scale.

RESULTS

The study included a total of 3746 patients over a 7 year-period. The incidence of major complications was low, especially haemodynamic and respiratory complications. An incidence of hypoxaemia of 3% was found in scheduled endoscopy versus 5.7% in urgent endoscopy (P<.05). The rate of hypotension was also low, with significant differences between scheduled and urgent endoscopy (6.4% vs. 18.8%, P<.001). In present study, no test had to be suspended due to poor patient tolerance, and the satisfaction was high in more than 99% of cases.

CONCLUSION

The participation of the anaesthetist in sedation for gastrointestinal endoscopy has shown excellent results in this study, in terms of safety and efficacy, mainly in the most serious patients and complex tests, as well as a high level of satisfaction.

Training in Endoscopy

PURPOSE OF THE REVIEW

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

RECENT FINDINGS

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

A short telephone-call reminder improves bowel preparation, quality indicators and patient satisfaction with first colonoscopy

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS

 Addition of a reminder program to conventional indications improves colonoscopy. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of a short telephone call reminder (STCR) on a patient's first colonoscopy.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

 One day before colonoscopy, we made a STCR of < 10 minutes to 141 randomly selected patients of 258 recruited. The STCRs informed patients about the procedure date, indications for taking laxatives, and dietetic requirements. Questions were clarified only when patients asked directly. We evaluated bowel preparation, quality indicators, and patient satisfaction. Data were expressed as mean ± SD and percentages. Statistical differences were evaluated by Student's t and Chi squared tests; alpha = 0.05. All authors had access to the study data and reviewed and approved the final manuscript.

RESULTS

 The STCR group had better bowel preparation which was demonstrated by higher completion frequency (97.16 % vs. 82.05 %), in less time (4.52 ± 3.06 vs. 5.38 ± 3.03 hours) intake of laxative, and higher Boston's scale (7.66 ± 2.42 vs. 5.2 ± 1.65). Quality indicators of colonoscopy were better in patients that received a STCR [cecal intubation rate: 100.00 % vs. 87.18 %; polyp detection: 42.55 % vs. 9.4 %; and cecal arrival time (min): 12.09 ± 3.62 vs. 15.09 ± 5.02]. STCR patients were more satisfied (97.87 % vs. 55.56 %) and would repeat colonoscopy (21.99 % vs. 11.11 %).

CONCLUSIONS

 A simple additional step such as a STCR improves quality of bowel preparation, quality indicators, and satisfaction of patients undergoing their first colonoscopy. Clinical trial registry in Mexico City General Hospital: DI/16/107/3/108.

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.

Feasibility and outcomes of underwater endoscopic mucosal resection for ≥ 10 mm colorectal polyps

BACKGROUND

Underwater endoscopic mucosal resection (UEMR) is an emerging strategy for the management of colorectal polyps. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of UEMR for clinically significant (≥ 10 mm) colorectal polyps.

METHODS

We performed a prospective dual-centre study of polyps ≥ 10 mm undergoing UEMR between June 2014 and March 2017. Outcomes measured comprised: (1) completeness of resection at index UEMR, (2) intraprocedural and 30-day complications, (3) rates and predictors of submucosal lift, en bloc resection, polyp/adenoma recurrence and (4) pain score. Endoscopy records were correlated with histology.

RESULTS

85 patients underwent UEMR of 97 polyps. Resection was endoscopically complete at index UEMR in 97.9%. The median pain score was 0 (no pain). Submucosal lift was required in 29.9% and correlated with polyp size ≥ 30 mm (p = 0.03) and clip placement (p = 0.004). En bloc resection was achieved in 45.4%, and inversely correlated with polyp size ≥ 20 mm (p < 0.001). 30-day complications (4.1%) were minor and consisted of intraprocedural bleeding (n = 2) and delayed bleeding (n = 2). 60.8% attended endoscopy post-UEMR after a median interval of 6 months, with 20.3% polyp and 13.6% adenoma recurrence. Polyp recurrence was associated with piecemeal resection (p = 0.04), recurrent polyp (p = 0.02), female sex (p = 0.01) and poor access (p = 0.005). Predictors for adenoma recurrence included female gender (p = 0.01) and difficult access (p < 0.001). Recurrence rates did not differ with polyp size, site, morphology, dysplasia status, submucosal injection, patient age, or study centre.

CONCLUSIONS

UEMR is an effective, safe and well tolerated option for significant colorectal polyps. Piecemeal resection, recurrent polyp, female gender, and difficult access are predictors of post-UEMR polyp recurrence.

Colonoscopy quality with Entonox®vs intravenous conscious sedation: 18608 colonoscopy retrospective study

AIM

To compare colonoscopy quality with nitrous oxide gas (Entonox®) against intravenous conscious sedation using midazolam plus opioid.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis was performed on a prospectively held database of 18608 colonoscopies carried out in Lothian health board hospitals between July 2013 and January 2016. The quality of colonoscopies performed with Entonox was compared to intravenous conscious sedation (abbreviated in this article as IVM). Furthermore, the quality of colonoscopies performed with an unmedicated group was compared to IVM. The study used the following key markers of colonoscopy quality: (1) patient comfort scores; (2) caecal intubation rates (CIRs); and (3) polyp detection rates (PDRs). We used binary logistic regression to model the data.

RESULTS

There was no difference in the rate of moderate-to-extreme discomfort between the Entonox and IVM groups (17.9% vs 18.8%; OR = 1.06, 95%CI: 0.95-1.18, P = 0.27). Patients in the unmedicated group were less likely to experience moderate-to-extreme discomfort than those in the IVM group (11.4% vs 18.8%; OR = 0.71, 95%CI: 0.60-0.83, P < 0.001). There was no difference in caecal intubation between the Entonox and IVM groups (94.4% vs 93.7%; OR = 1.08, 95%CI: 0.92-1.28, P = 0.34). There was no difference in caecal intubation between the unmedicated and IVM groups (94.2% vs 93.7%; OR = 0.98, 95%CI: 0.79-1.22, P = 0.87). Polyp detection in the Entonox group was not different from IVM group (35.0% vs 33.1%; OR = 1.01, 95%CI: 0.93-1.10, P = 0.79). Polyp detection in the unmedicated group was not significantly different from the IVM group (37.4% vs 33.1%; OR = 0.97, 95%CI: 0.87-1.08, P = 0.60).

CONCLUSION

The use of Entonox was not associated with lower colonoscopy quality when compared to intravenous conscious sedation using midazolam plus opioid.

Expert opinions and scientific evidence for colonoscopy key performance indicators

Colonoscopy is a widely performed procedure with procedural volumes increasing annually throughout the world. Many procedures are now performed as part of colorectal cancer screening programmes. Colonoscopy should be of high quality and measures of this quality should be evidence based. New UK key performance indicators and quality assurance standards have been developed by a working group with consensus agreement on each standard reached. This paper reviews the scientific basis for each of the quality measures published in the UK standards.

What do patients want from their endoscopy experience? The importance of measuring and understanding patient attitudes to their care

Understanding and addressing patient attitudes to their care facilitates their engagement and attendance, improves the quality of their experience and the appropriate utilisation of resources. Gastrointestinal endoscopy is a commonly performed medical procedure that can be associated with patient anxiety and apprehension. Measuring patient attitudes to endoscopy can be undertaken through a number of approaches with contrasting benefits and limitations. Methodological validation is necessary for accurate interpretation of results and avoiding bias. Retrospective post-procedure questionnaires measuring satisfaction are easily undertaken but have limited value, particularly in directing service improvements. Patient experience questionnaires indicate areas of poor care but may reflect the clinician's not the patient's perspective. Directly assessing patient priorities and expectations identifies what is important to patients in their healthcare experience (patient-reported value) that can also provide a basis for other forms of evaluation. Published studies of patient attitudes to their endoscopy procedure indicate the importance of ensuring that endoscopists and their staff control patient discomfort, have adequate technical skill and effectively communicate with their patient relating to the procedure and results. Environmental factors, including noise, privacy and the single-sex environment, are considered to have less value. There are contrasting views on patient attitudes to waiting times for the procedure. Implementing patient-centred care in endoscopy requires an understanding of what patients want from their healthcare experience. The results from available studies suggest implications for current practice that relate to the training and practice of the endoscopist and their staff.

Accrediting for screening-related colonoscopy services: What is required of the endoscopist and of the endoscopy service?

Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening is widely implemented to reduce CRC incidence and related mortality. The impact of screening as well as the balance between screening burden and benefits strongly depends on the quality of colonoscopy. Besides quality, safety of the endoscopic procedure and patient satisfaction are important outcome parameters for a screening program. Therefore the requirements for both CRC screening endoscopy services and endoscopists focus on technical aspects, patient safety, and patient experience. Stringent quality assurance by means of routine monitoring of quality indicators for the performance of endoscopists and endoscopy units is recommended. This allows setting minimum standards, targeted interventions, and enhancement of the overall quality of population screening. This reviews deals with guidelines and quality standards for colorectal cancer screening, with focus on both endoscopist and endoscopy services.

What Can We Do to Optimize Colonoscopy and How Effective Can We Be?

In the USA, colorectal cancer is the third most common cancer and third leading cause of cancer death among both men and women. Declining rates of colon cancer in the past decade have been attributed in part to screening and removal of precancerous polyps via colonoscopy. Recent emphasis has been placed on measures to increase the quality and effectiveness of colonoscopy. These have been divided into pre-procedure quality metrics (bowel preparation), procedural quality metrics (cecal intubation, withdrawal time, and adenoma detection rate), post-procedure metrics (surveillance interval), and other quality metrics (patient satisfaction and willingness to repeat the procedure). The purpose of this article is to review the data and controversies surrounding each of these and identify ways to optimize the performance of colonoscopy.

Sedation practice and comfort during colonoscopy: lessons learnt from a national screening programme

AIM

Medication may be used to manage discomfort during colonoscopy but practice varies. The relationship between medication use and comfort during colonoscopy was examined in the English Bowel Cancer Screening Programme.

METHODS

Data related to patient comfort and medication use from all 113,316 examinations performed within the English Bowel Cancer Screening Programme between 1 January 2010 and 31 December 2012 were analysed. Comfort was rated on the five-point Modified Gloucester Comfort Scale: 1, no discomfort; 5, severe discomfort. Scores of 4 and 5 were considered to indicate significant discomfort. Correlations between the proportion of examinations associated with significant discomfort and the amounts of medication used by colonoscopists were assessed using Spearman's ρ. Logistic regression modelling examined the independent predictors of significant discomfort.

RESULTS

Patients had a mean age of 65.7 years, and 58% were male. Examinations were performed by 290 endoscopists. In 91% of examinations, there was no significant discomfort reported during examination; however, there was considerable variation between individual colonoscopists (range 76.1-99.2%).Intravenous sedation and opiate analgesia were used during most examinations, but there was wide variation between colonoscopists, with a median (range) usage of 95.1% (4.1-100%) and 97.3% (5.6-100%), respectively. There was no association between the amount of sedation and analgesia used and significant discomfort (ρ<0.2). On multivariate analysis, significant discomfort was found to be more common among female individuals [odds ratio (OR)=2.0], on incomplete examinations (OR=6.7), and among patients with diverticulosis (OR=1.4).

CONCLUSION

There was wide variation in medication practice among English screening colonoscopists, but this was unrelated to the occurrence of significant discomfort.

Optimized sedation improves colonoscopy quality long-term

Background. Quality monitoring and improvement is prerequisite for efficient colonoscopy. Aim. To assess the effects of increased sedation administration on colonoscopy performance. Materials and Methods. During Era 1 we prospectively measured four colonoscopy quality indicators: sedation administration, colonoscopy completion rate, adenoma detection rate, and early complications rate in three cohorts: cohort A: intention for total colonoscopy cases; cohort B: cohort A excluding bowel obstruction cases; cohort C: CRC screening-surveillance cases within cohort B. We identified deficiencies and implemented our plan to optimize sedation. We prospectively evaluated its effects in both short- (Era 2) and long-term period (Era 3). Results. We identified that sedation administration and colonoscopy completion rates were below recommended standards. After sedation optimization its use rate increased significantly (38.1% to 55.8% to 69.5%) and colonoscopy completion rate increased from 88.3% to 90.6% to 96.4% in cohort B and from 93.2% to 95.3% to 98.3% in cohort C, in Eras 1, 2, and 3, respectively. Adenoma detection rate increased in cohort C (25.9% to 30.6% to 35%) and early complications rate decreased from 3.4% to 1.9% to 0.3%. Most endoscopists increased significantly their completion rate and this was preserved long-term. Conclusion. Increased sedation administration results in long-lasting improvement of colonoscopy quality indicators.

Cardiopulmonary safety of propofol versus midazolam/meperidine sedation for colonoscopy: a prospective, randomized, double-blinded study

Background:

Different levels of pharmacological sedation ranging from minimal to general anesthesia are often used to increase patient tolerance for a successful colonoscopy. However, sedation increases the risk of respiratory depression and cardiovascular complications during colonoscopy.

Objectives:

We aimed to compare the propofol and midazolam/meperidine sedation methods for colonoscopy procedures with respect to cardiopulmonary safety, procedure-related times, and patient satisfaction.

Patients and Methods:

This was a prospective, randomized, double-blinded study, in which 124 consecutive patients undergoing elective outpatient diagnostic colonoscopies were divided into propofol and midazolam/meperidine sedation groups (n: 62, m/f ratio: 26/36, mean age: 46 ± 15 for the propofol group; n: 62, m/f ratio: 28/34, mean age: 49 ± 15 for the midazolam/meperidine group) by computer-generated randomization. The frequency of cardiopulmonary events (hypotension, bradycardia, hypoxemia), procedure-related times (duration of colonoscopy, time to cecal intubation, time to ileal intubation, awakening time, and time to hospital discharge) and patients’ evaluation results (pain assessment, quality of sedation, and recollection of procedure) were compared between the groups.

Results:

There were no statistically significant differences between the two groups with respect to demographic and clinical characteristics of the patients, the frequency of hypotension, hypoxemia or bradycardia, cecal and ileal intubation times, and the duration of colonoscopy. The logistic regression analysis indicated that the development of cardiopulmonary events was not associated with the sedative agent used or the characteristics of the patients. The time required for the patient to be fully awake and the time to hospital discharge was significantly longer in the propofol group (11 ± 8 and 37 ± 11 minutes, respectively) than the midazolam/meperidine group (8 ± 6 and 29 ± 12 minutes, respectively) (P = 0.009 and P < 0.001, respectively). The patient satisfaction rates were not significantly different between the groups; however, patients in the propofol group experienced more pain than patients in the midazolam/meperidine group (VAS score: 0.31 ± 0.76 vs. 0 ± 0; P = 0.002).

Conclusions:

Midazolam/meperidine and propofol sedation for colonoscopy have similar cardiopulmonary safety profiles and patient satisfaction levels. Midazolam/meperidine can be preferred to propofol sedation due to a shorter hospital length of stay and better analgesic activity.