British Society of Gastroenterology/Association of Coloproctologists of Great Britain and Ireland guidelines for the management of large non-pedunculated colorectal polyps.

These guidelines provide an evidence-based framework for the management of patients with large non-pedunculated colorectal polyps (LNPCPs), in addition to identifying key performance indicators (KPIs) that permit the audit of quality outcomes. These are areas not previously covered by British Society of Gastroenterology (BSG) Guidelines.A National Institute of Health and Care Excellence (NICE) compliant BSG guideline development process was used throughout and the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE II) tool was used to structure the guideline development process. A systematic review of literature was conducted for English language articles up to May 2014 concerning the assessment and management of LNPCPs. Quality of evaluated studies was assessed using the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN) Methodology Checklist System. Proposed recommendation statements were evaluated by each member of the Guideline Development Group (GDG) on a scale from 1 (strongly agree) to 5 (strongly disagree) with >80% agreement required for consensus to be reached. Where consensus was not reached a modified Delphi process was used to re-evaluate and modify proposed statements until consensus was reached or the statement discarded. A round table meeting was subsequently held to finalise recommendations and to evaluate the strength of evidence discussed. The GRADE tool was used to assess the strength of evidence and strength of recommendation for finalised statements.KPIs, a training framework and potential research questions for the management of LNPCPs were also developed. It is hoped that these guidelines will improve the assessment and management of LNPCPs.

UK endoscopy trainer survey: perspectives on current endoscopy training delivery, experience, barriers and opportunities.

Objective: UK endoscopy training is delivered by trainers possessing well developed endoscopy and teaching skills to help learners perform high-quality endoscopy. Train The Trainer (TTT) courses are effective, but additional trainer support is variable with little formal quality assurance. We performed a survey to map UK endoscopy training, assess trainer perspectives on training delivery and identify factors that would enhance training. Design/Method: An online survey was designed by trainer representatives, in collaboration with the JAG training committee, and collected responses from trainers registered on JAG endoscopy training system e-portfolio from April to June 2022. Results: There were 1024 responses from all trainer disciplines, with 813 (79%) completing TTT courses and 584 (57%) having job planned dedicated training lists (DTLs). Clinical endoscopists most frequently had job-planned DTLs (71%), and DTLs occurring at least weekly (58%). 293 (29%) respondents participated as course faculty. Trainers reported high levels of pre-procedure preparation, effective dialogue and frequent feedback. The DOPS forms were 'always/often' completed by 81% of clinical endoscopists, 73% of gastroenterologist and 58% of surgeons. 435 (42%) trainers never had peer feedback. Responses suggested training could improve by protecting training time, attending courses, participating as faculty and receiving feedback from experienced trainers. Conclusion: This survey demonstrates substantial proportions of highly motivated UK trainers who value time spent teaching and learning how to teach. Skills taught on the TTT courses are often actively used in everyday training. Improved trainer course access, protected training time and formal use of existing feedback tools by peers were highlighted as measures that could support trainers' development.

Developing an endoscopic mucosal resection service in a district general hospital.

OBJECTIVE: To describe the implementation of a formal single-operator led endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) service in a district general hospital, and the effect on patient outcome of this service development. DESIGN: Prospective audit during initiation and subsequent development of EMR service. SETTING: District general hospital. PATIENTS: All patients referred to EMR service between 1 January 2008 and 31 December 2011. INTERVENTIONS: Nil in addition to clinical care. MAIN OUTCOMES MEASURED: The number of EMRs per year including polyp size and histology, recurrence of polyp tissue at 3 months following EMR, and complications including early/delayed bleeding and perforation. RESULTS: Following service implementation, the number of EMRs rose from 11 in 2008 to 35 in 2011, with the number of large polyps (>30 mm) rising from four in 2008 to 24 in 2011. Recurrent or residual adenomatous tissue fell from 75% in 2008 to 4.76% in 2011. Only one perforation occurred over the 4 years (0.8% perforation rate: 1 in 120 polypectomies). A reduction in surgical intervention for adenomatous polyp removal was observed during the audit period. CONCLUSIONS: Professional engagement and support by medical, surgical and nursing members of the endoscopy team promoted development of skill and confidence in EMR. Exposure to higher volumes of EMR procedures allowed successful removal of larger lesions, while maintained patient safety and reduced the need for surgical removal of benign polyps.