Defining and Applying Locally Relevant Benchmarks for the Adenoma Detection Rate.

INTRODUCTION: The adenoma detection rate (ADR) is the best validated colonoscopy performance quality indicator. The ASGE/ACG Task Force on Colonoscopy Quality set an ADR benchmark of ≥25% in a mixed male/female population. We propose a novel means for defining locally relevant ADR benchmarks using data from the population of interest and for applying ADR benchmarks using 95% confidence intervals (CIs) of an endoscopist's ADR. We further propose that ADR benchmarks should be raised to reflect what can be achieved by high-performing endoscopists. METHODS: We used endoscopists' performance in a baseline year to develop and apply benchmarks in an assessment year. We defined assessment year benchmarks (Minimally Acceptable, Standard of Care, and Aspirational) based on the average ADR of performance groups defined by baseline year ADR quartiles. We demonstrated the use of these benchmarks in endoscopists performing screening colonoscopies by determining if the upper bound of the 95% CI of the endoscopist's ADR included the ADR benchmark. RESULTS: The study included 8,492 colonoscopies (mean ADR 29%) in 2014 and 5,193 colonoscopies (mean ADR 32%) in 2015, completed at a regional screening center in Calgary, Canada. The Minimally Acceptable, Standard of Care, and Aspirational benchmarks for 2015 were 25%, 30%, and 39%, respectively. The 95% CI of the ADR of 1 (3%), 3 (10%), and 12 (39%) endoscopists did not include the benchmark. DISCUSSION: We have proposed methods for defining and applying benchmarks for ADR in average-risk patients that go beyond the "minimally acceptable" threshold currently recommended.

Defining Benchmarks for Adenoma Detection Rate and Adenomas Per Colonoscopy in Patients Undergoing Colonoscopy Due to a Positive Fecal Immunochemical Test.

OBJECTIVES: Although there is an accepted benchmark for adenoma detection rate (ADR) in average risk screening colonoscopy, a benchmark for ADR or the associated quality indicator, adenomas per colonoscopy (APC), for colonoscopies performed for a positive fecal immunochemical test (FIT+) has not been established. The purpose of this study was to propose methods for establishing a benchmark ADR and APC for FIT+ patients. METHODS: In this historical cohort study, we included 15,329 patients aged 50-74 years who underwent a colonoscopy at Alberta Health Services' Colon Cancer Screening Centre, Calgary, Canada, from 1 January 2014 to 30 June 2015 for either investigation of a positive FIT or average risk screening. Using meta-regression, we estimated for FIT+ patients the ADR and APC that corresponded to (Method #1: minimally acceptable) an ADR of 25% in average risk individuals, (Method #2: standard of care) the average ADR or APC in all FIT+ patients, and (Method #3: aspirational) the average FIT+ ADR or APC in colonoscopies performed by endoscopists with an ADR of ≥35% in average risk patients. RESULTS: At least one adenoma was detected in 30% of average risk patients and 58% of FIT+ patients. The calculated benchmark FIT+ ADRs for the three methods were 55, 60, and 65%, respectively. The calculated benchmarks for FIT+ APC were 1.2, 1.4, and 1.7, respectively. To account for expected random variation in individual endoscopists' ADR or APC, we propose using the upper bound of the 95% confidence interval of an endoscopist's ADR or APC to determine if they fall below a given benchmark. CONCLUSIONS: We have proposed methods of defining benchmarks for ADR and APC in FIT+ patients that go beyond the current "minimally acceptable" threshold currently recommended in average risk patients. These new thresholds represent results obtained by all peers and by a group of expert adenoma detectors defined in an independent patient cohort (average risk). Because the true adenoma burden in FIT+ patients could vary based on factors such as the threshold used to define a positive FIT, screening programs or endoscopy units may need to calculate their own benchmarks using local data.

The association of colonoscopy quality indicators with the detection of screen-relevant lesions, adverse events, and postcolonoscopy cancers in an asymptomatic Canadian colorectal cancer screening population.

BACKGROUND: Although several quality indicators of colonoscopy have been defined, quality assurance activities should be directed at the measurement of quality indicators that are predictive of key screening colonoscopy outcomes. OBJECTIVE: The goal of this study was to examine the association among established quality indicators and the detection of screen-relevant lesions (SRLs), adverse events, and postcolonoscopy cancers. DESIGN: Historical cohort study. SETTING: Canadian colorectal cancer screening center. PATIENTS: A total of 18,456 asymptomatic men and women ages 40 to 74, at either average risk or increased risk for colorectal cancer because of a family history, who underwent a screening colonoscopy from 2008 to 2010. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: Using univariate and multivariate analyses, we explored the association among procedural quality indicators and 3 colonoscopy outcomes: detection of SRLs, adverse events, and postcolonoscopy cancers. RESULTS: The crude rates of SRLs, adverse events, and postcolonoscopy cancers were 240, 6.44, and .54 per 1000 colonoscopies, respectively. Several indicators, including endoscopist withdrawal time (OR, 1.3; 95% CI, 1.2-1.4) and cecal intubation rate (OR, 13.9; 95% CI, 1.9-96.9), were associated with the detection of SRLs. No quality indicator was associated with the risk of adverse events. Endoscopist average withdrawal time over 6 minutes (OR, .12; 95% CI, .002-.85) and SRL detection rate over 20% (OR, .17; 95% CI, .03-.74) were associated with a reduced risk of postcolonoscopy cancers. LIMITATIONS: Single-center study. CONCLUSION: Quality assurance programs should prioritize the measurement of endoscopist average withdrawal time and adenoma (SRL) detection rate.

Development and validation of a nurse-assessed patient comfort score for colonoscopy.

BACKGROUND: Comfort during colonoscopy is a critical component of safety and quality. OBJECTIVE: To develop and validate the Nurse-Assessed Patient Comfort Score (NAPCOMS). DESIGN: Prospective scale validation. SETTING: Colorectal cancer screening centers in the United Kingdom and Canada. PATIENTS: A total of 300 consecutive patients undergoing colonoscopy at participating colorectal cancer screening centers. INTERVENTION: The NAPCOMS was developed by using a modified Delphi process. During colonoscopy, two endoscopy room nurses independently observed and rated patient comfort and tolerability by using NAPCOMS. In addition, endoscopists reported global comfort scores and patients' reported global comfort by using visual 4-point Likert and National Health Service-United Kingdom Global Rating Scales. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: Reliability and validity of NAPCOMS was measured by using intraclass correlations (ICC) between nurse ratings of colonoscopies and between NAPCOMS, endoscopist ratings, and patient ratings of global comfort. RESULTS: The ICC for the overall NAPCOMS was 0.84 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.80-0.87). There was high agreement between the NAPCOMS and endoscopist ratings of comfort (ICC = 0.77; 95% CI, 0.72-0.81), moderate agreement between the NAPCOMS and patient ratings (ICC = 0.61; 95% CI, 0.53-0.67), and moderate agreement between the endoscopist and patient ratings (ICC = 0.52; 95% CI, 0.43-0.60). LIMITATIONS: NAPCOMS was validated in outpatients who received colonoscopy with minimal to moderate sedation as part of a screening and surveillance program, so performance among inpatients or those requiring deep sedation was not tested. CONCLUSION: NAPCOMS is a reliable and valid tool for assessing patient comfort in the setting of outpatient colonoscopy performed with minimal to moderate sedation.

Canadian Digestive Health Foundation Public Impact Series 5: Pancreatitis in Canada. Incidence, prevalence, and direct and indirect economic impact.

The Canadian Digestive Health Foundation initiated a scientific program to assess the incidence, prevalence, mortality and economic impact of digestive disorders across Canada in 2009. The current article presents the updated findings from the study concerning pancreatitis.

Development and implementation of a comprehensive quality assurance program at a community endoscopy facility.

Quality assurance (QA) is a process that includes the systematic evaluation of a service, institution of improvements and ongoing evaluation to ensure that effective changes were made. QA is a fundamental component of any organized colorectal cancer screening program. However, it should play an equally important role in opportunistic screening. Establishing the processes and procedures for a comprehensive QA program can be a daunting proposition for an endoscopy unit. The present article describes the steps taken to establish a QA program at the Forzani & MacPhail Colon Cancer Screening Centre (Calgary, Alberta) - a colorectal cancer screening centre and nonhospital endoscopy unit that is dedicated to providing colorectal cancer screening-related colonoscopies. Lessons drawn from the authors' experience may help others develop their own initiatives. The Global Rating Scale, a quality assessment and improvement tool developed for the gastrointestinal endoscopy services of the United Kingdom's National Health Service, was used as the framework to develop the QA program. QA activities include monitoring the patient experience through surveys, creating endoscopist report cards on colonoscopy performance, tracking and evaluating adverse events and monitoring wait times.

Point-of-care, peer-comparator colonoscopy practice audit: The Canadian Association of Gastroenterology Quality Program--Endoscopy.

BACKGROUND: Point-of-care practice audits allow documentation of procedural outcomes to support quality improvement in endoscopic practice. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate a colonoscopists' practice audit tool that provides point-of-care data collection and peer-comparator feedback. METHODS: A prospective, observational colonoscopy practice audit was conducted in academic and community endoscopy units for unselected patients undergoing colonoscopy. Anonymized colonoscopist, patient and practice data were collected using touchscreen smartphones with automated data upload for data analysis and review by participants. The main outcome measures were the following colonoscopy quality indicators: colonoscope insertion and withdrawal times, bowel preparation quality, sedation, immediate complications and polypectomy, and biopsy rates. RESULTS: Over a span of 16 months, 62 endoscopists reported on 1279 colonoscopy procedures. The mean cecal intubation rate was 94.9% (10th centile 84.2%). The mean withdrawal time was 8.8 min and, for nonpolypectomy colonoscopies, 41.9% of colonoscopists reported a mean withdrawal time of less than 6 min. Polypectomy was performed in 37% of colonoscopies. Independent predictors of polypectomy included the following: endoscopy unit type, patient age, interval since previous colonoscopy, bowel preparation quality, stable inflammatory bowel disease, previous colon polyps and withdrawal time. Withdrawal times of less than 6 min were associated with lower polyp removal rates (mean difference -11.3% [95% CI -2.8% to -19.9%]; P=0.01). DISCUSSION: Cecal intubation rates exceeded 90% and polypectomy rates exceeded 30%, but withdrawal times were frequently shorter than recommended. There are marked practice variations consistent with previous observations. CONCLUSION: Real-time, point-of-care practice audits with prompt, confidential access to outcome data provide a basis for targeted educational programs to improve quality in colonoscopy practice.

Adverse events associated with endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography: protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) is performed to diagnose and manage conditions of the biliary and pancreatic ducts. Though effective, it is associated with common adverse events (AEs). The purpose of this study is to systematically review ERCP AE rates and report up-to-date pooled estimates. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A comprehensive electronic search will be conducted of relevant medical databases through 10 November 2020. A study team of eight data abstracters will independently determine study eligibility, assess quality and abstract data in parallel, with any two concordant entries constituting agreement and with discrepancies resolved by consensus. The primary outcome will be the pooled incidence of post-ERCP pancreatitis, with secondary outcomes including post-ERCP bleeding, cholangitis, perforation, cholecystitis, death and unplanned healthcare encounters. Secondary outcomes will also include rates of specific and overall AEs within clinically relevant subgroups determined a priori. DerSimonian and Laird random effects models will be used to perform meta-analyses of these outcomes. Sources of heterogeneity will be explored via meta-regression. Subgroup analyses based on median dates of data collection across studies will be performed to determine whether AE rates have changed over time. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethics approval is not required for this study as it is a planned meta-analysis of previously published data. Participant consent is similarly not required. Dissemination is planned via presentation at relevant conferences in addition to publication in peer-reviewed journals.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42020220221.

Survey of access to gastroenterology in Canada: the SAGE wait times program.

BACKGROUND: Assessment of current wait times for specialist health services in Canada is a key method that can assist government and health care providers to plan wisely for future health needs. These data are not readily available. A method to capture wait time data at the time of consultation or procedure has been developed, which should be applicable to other specialist groups and also allows for assessment of wait time trends over intervals of years. METHODS: In November 2008, gastroenterologists across Canada were asked to complete a questionnaire (online or by fax) that included personal demographics and data from one week on at least five consecutive new consultations and five consecutive procedure patients who had not previously undergone a procedure for the same indication. Wait times were collected for 18 primary indications and results were then compared with similar survey data collected in 2005. RESULTS: The longest wait times observed were for screening colonoscopy (201 days) and surveillance of previous colon cancer or polyps (272 days). The shortest wait times were for cancer-likely based on imaging or physical examination (82 days), severe or rapidly progressing dysphagia or odynophagia (83 days), documented iron deficiency anemia (90 days) and dyspepsia with alarm symptoms (99 days). Compared with 2005 data, total wait times in 2008 were lengthened overall (127 days versus 155 days; P<0.05) and for most of the seven individual indications that permitted data comparison. CONCLUSION: Median wait times for gastroenterology services continue to exceed consensus conference recommended targets and have significantly worsened since 2005.

Development of a definition and rules for causal attribution of post-colonoscopy bleeding.

BACKGROUND: Post-colonoscopy bleeding (PCB) is an important colonoscopy quality indicator that is recommended to be routinely collected by colorectal cancer screening programs and endoscopy quality improvement programs. We created a standardized and reliable definition of PCB and set of rules for attributing the relatedness of PCB to a colonoscopy. METHODS: PCB events were identified from colonoscopies performed at the Forzani & MacPhail Colon Cancer Screening Centre. Existing definitions and relatedness rules for PCB were reviewed by the authors and a draft definition and set of rules was created. The definition and rules were revised after initial testing was performed using a set of 15 bleeding events. Information available for each event included the original endoscopy report and data abstracted from the emergency or inpatient record by a trained research assistant. A validation set of 32 bleeding events were then reviewed to assess their interrater reliability by having three endoscopists and one research assistant complete independent reviews and three endoscopists complete a consensus review. The Kappa statistic was used to measure interrater reliability. RESULTS: The panel classified 28 of 32 events as meeting the definition of PCB and rated 7, 8 and 6 events as definitely, probably and possibly related to the colonoscopy, respectively. The Kappa for the definition of PCB for the three independent reviews was 0.82 (substantial agreement). The Kappa for the attribution of the PCB to the colonoscopy by the three endosocopists was 0.74 (substantial agreement). The research assistant had a high agreement with the panel for both the definition (100% agreement) and application of the causal criteria (kappa 0.95). CONCLUSIONS: A standardized definition of PCB and attribution rules achieved high interrater reliability by endoscopists and a non-endoscopist and provides a template of required data for event adjudication by screening and quality improvement programs.

Recommendations on chronic constipation (including constipation associated with irritable bowel syndrome) treatment.

While chronic constipation (CC) has a high prevalence in primary care, there are no existing treatment recommendations to guide health care professionals. To address this, a consensus group of 10 gastroenterologists was formed to develop treatment recommendations. Although constipation may occur as a result of organic disease, the present paper addresses only the management of primary CC or constipation associated with irritable bowel syndrome. The final consensus group was assembled and the recommendations were created following the exact process outlined by the Canadian Association of Gastroenterology for the following areas: epidemiology, quality of life and threshold for treatment; definitions and diagnostic criteria; lifestyle changes; bulking agents and stool softeners; osmotic agents; prokinetics; stimulant laxatives; suppositories; enemas; other drugs; biofeedback and behavioural approaches; surgery; and probiotics. A treatment algorithm was developed by the group for CC and constipation associated with irritable bowel syndrome. Where possible, an evidence-based approach and expert opinions were used to develop the statements in areas with insufficient evidence. The nature of the underlying pathophysiology for constipation is often unclear, and it can be tricky for physicians to decide on an appropriate treatment strategy for the individual patient. The myriad of treatment options available to Canadian physicians can be confusing; thus, the main aim of the recommendations and treatment algorithm is to optimize the approach in clinical care based on available evidence.

Scheduling rules for patients with diabetes mellitus that facilitate split-dosing improve the quality of bowel preparation for colonoscopy.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: An adequate bowel preparation for colonoscopy is best achieved by giving the cleansing regimen as a split-dose with the second dose given 4-6 hours before the procedure. This can be difficult to administer to diabetics who are preferentially scheduled for early morning procedures. We examined the impact on bowel preparation quality of scheduling diabetics for mid-morning (9:30 am or later) procedures rather than early morning procedures (7:30-9:00 AM) to facilitate a split-dose preparation. METHODS: Historical cohort study of 34,415 patients (1,805 diabetics) age 18-74 years without significant comorbidities who underwent an outpatient colorectal cancer screening-related colonoscopy either before (2013) or after (2014) a unit wide change in scheduling practices for diabetics. The primary outcome was the rate of inadequate bowel preparation. Secondary outcomes include the rate of procedures complete to the cecum, procedure duration and detection rates of polyps, any colorectal cancer screening-relevant lesion (adenoma, sessile serrated adenoma, large proximal hyperplastic polyp) and advanced adenomas. RESULTS: From 2013 to 2014, the proportion of diabetics with an inadequate bowel preparation decreased from 7.7% to 3.2% (95% confidence interval for the difference 2.2%-6.8%, P<0.00005). There was no significant change in the proportion of non-diabetics with inadequate preparation (2% in both years). There was no change in secondary outcomes in diabetics from 2013 to 2014. CONCLUSIONS: Preferentially scheduling diabetic patients later in the morning that more conveniently allowed for a split dose bowel preparation resulted in decreased rates of inadequate bowel preparation without disadvantaging other patients.

Well differentiated intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma in the setting of biliary papillomatosis: a case report and review of the literature.

A 64-year-old man presented with long-standing, vague, epigastric abdominal pain. History, physical examination and laboratory studies were noncontributory. However, serial computed tomography scans revealed a rapidly progressive mass in segment 2 of the liver. Surprisingly, surgical pathology revealed a well-differentiated intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma associated with biliary papillomatosis (BP). BP is a rare, benign and potentially fatal disease of the intra- and extrahepatic bile ducts. It is typified by numerous multicentric papillary fronds arising from biliary columnar epithelium. Most patients present with symptoms of jaundice and cholangitis. Although a benign disease, a review of the literature demonstrated that BP often recurs after surgical resection, carries a poor prognosis and has a moderately high malignant transformation rate. Treatment options for BP include surgical resection, transplant, ablation, stenting and/or bypass.

Leptomeningeal carcinomatosis secondary to gastroesophageal adenocarcinoma: a case report and review of the literature.

BACKGROUND: Leptomeningeal carcinomatosis (LC) is a rare metastatic complication of solid tumours. It has been mainly described in association with breast cancer, lung cancer and melanoma. CASE PRESENTATION: A patient presenting with progressive solid food dysphagia with documented adenocarcinoma of the lower esophagus and gastroesophageal junction is reported. One month after the initial diagnosis, the patient developed gradual onset of increasing headache and progressive decrease in the level of consciousness. Computed tomography of the head showed evidence of meningeal enhancement, and cerebrospinal fluid examination showed the presence of adenocarcinoma cells, making the diagnosis of LC. The patient died one month after LC was diagnosed. DISCUSSION: LC is a poor prognostic sign in solid organ malignancies. It usually presents with headache, altered level of consciousness and focal neurological deficits. Diagnosis is established by finding malignant cells in the cerebrospinal fluid and supported by marked meningeal enhancement on computed tomography of the brain. A review of the English literature found only three reported cases of LC secondary to esophageal malignancy. CONCLUSION: A case of LC complicating esophageal and gastroesophageal junction malignancy is described. A high index of suspicion and early diagnosis may influence the poor outcome of these patients.

The 2012 SAGE wait times program: Survey of Access to GastroEnterology in Canada.

BACKGROUND: Periodically surveying wait times for specialist health services in Canada captures current data and enables comparisons with previous surveys to identify changes over time. METHODS: During one week in April 2012, Canadian gastroenterologists were asked to complete a questionnaire (online or by fax) recording demographics, reason for referral, and dates of referral and specialist visits for at least 10 consecutive new patients (five consultations and five procedures) who had not been seen previously for the same indication. Wait times were determined for 18 indications and compared with those from similar surveys conducted in 2008 and 2005. RESULTS: Data regarding adult patients were provided by 173 gastroenterologists for 1374 consultations, 540 procedures and 293 same-day consultations and procedures. Nationally, the median wait times were 92 days (95% CI 85 days to 100 days) from referral to consultation, 55 days (95% CI 50 days to 61 days) from consultation to procedure and 155 days (95% CI 142 days to 175 days) (total) from referral to procedure. Overall, wait times were longer in 2012 than in 2005 (P<0.05); the wait time to same-day consultation and procedure was shorter in 2012 than in 2008 (78 days versus 101 days; P<0.05), but continued to be longer than in 2005 (P<0.05). The total wait time remained longest for screening colonoscopy, increasing from 201 days in 2008 to 279 days in 2012 (P<0.05). DISCUSSION: Wait times for gastroenterology services continue to exceed recommended targets, remain unchanged since 2008 and exceed wait times reported in 2005.