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

BACKGROUND: Despite advances in understanding and reducing the risk of endoscopic procedures, there is little consideration of the safety of the wider endoscopy service. Patient safety incidents (PSIs) still occur. We sought to identify nonprocedural PSIs (nPSIs) and their causative factors from a human factors perspective and generate ideas for safety improvement. METHODS: Endoscopy-specific PSI reports were extracted from the National Reporting and Learning System (NRLS). A retrospective, cross-sectional human factors analysis of data was performed. Two independent researchers coded data using a hybrid thematic analysis approach. The Human Factors Analysis and Classification System (HFACS) was used to code contributory factors. Analysis informed creation of driver diagrams and key recommendations for safety improvement in endoscopy. RESULTS: From 2017 to 2019, 1181 endoscopy-specific PSIs of significant harm were reported across England and Wales, with 539 (45.6%) being nPSIs. Five categories accounted for over 80% of all incidents, with "follow-up and surveillance" being the largest (23.4% of all nPSIs). From the free-text incident reports, 487 human factors codes were identified. Decision-based errors were the most common act prior to PSI occurrence. Other frequent preconditions to incidents were focused on environmental factors, particularly overwhelmed resources, patient factors, and ineffective team communication. Lack of staffing, standard operating procedures, effective systems, and clinical pathways were also contributory. Seven key recommendations for improving safety have been made in response to our findings. CONCLUSIONS: This was the first national-level human factors analysis of endoscopy-specific PSIs. This work will inform safety improvement strategies and should empower individual services to review their approach to safety.

The variation in post-endoscopy upper gastrointestinal cancer rates among endoscopy providers in England and associated factors: a population-based study.

BACKGROUND: Post-endoscopy upper gastrointestinal cancer (PEUGIC) is an important key performance indicator for endoscopy quality. We examined variation in PEUGIC rates among endoscopy providers in England and explored associated factors. METHODS: The was a population-based, retrospective, case-control study, examining data from National Cancer Registration and Analysis Service and Hospital Episode Statistics databases for esophageal and gastric cancers diagnosed between 2009 and 2018 in England. PEUGIC were cancers diagnosed 6 to 36 months after an endoscopy that did not diagnose cancer. Associated factors were identified using multivariable logistic regression analyses. RESULTS: The national PEUGIC rate was 8.5%, varying from 5% to 13% among endoscopy providers. Factors associated with PEUGIC included: female sex (odds ratio [OR] 1.29 [95%CI 1.23-1.36]); younger age (age >80 years, OR 0.52 [0.48-0.56], compared with ≤60 years); increasing comorbidity (Charlson score >4, OR 5.06 [4.45-5.76]); history of esophageal ulcer (OR 3.30 [3.11-3.50]), Barrett's esophagus (OR 3.21 [3.02-3.42]), esophageal stricture (OR 1.28 [1.20-1.37]), or gastric ulcer (OR 1.55 [1.44-1.66]); squamous cell carcinoma (OR 1.50 [1.39-1.61]); and UK national endoscopy accreditation status - providers requiring improvement (OR 1.10 [1.01-1.20]), providers never assessed (OR 1.24 [1.04-1.47]). CONCLUSION: PEUGIC rates varied threefold among endoscopy providers, suggesting unwarranted differences in endoscopy quality. PEUGIC was associated with endoscopy findings known to be associated with upper gastrointestinal cancer and a lack of national endoscopy provider accreditation. PEUGIC variations suggest an opportunity to raise performance standards to detect upper gastrointestinal cancers earlier and improve outcomes.

Quantifying the cost savings and health impacts of improving colonoscopy quality: an economic evaluation.

OBJECTIVE: To estimate and quantify the cost implications and health impacts of improving the performance of English endoscopy services to the optimum quality as defined by postcolonoscopy colorectal cancer (PCCRC) rates. DESIGN: A semi-Markov state-transition model was constructed, following the logical treatment pathway of individuals who could potentially undergo a diagnostic colonoscopy. The model consisted of three identical arms, each representing a high, middle or low-performing trust's endoscopy service, defined by PCCRC rates. A cohort of 40-year-old individuals was simulated in each arm of the model. The model's time horizon was when the cohort reached 90 years of age and the total costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were calculated for all trusts. Scenario and sensitivity analyses were also conducted. RESULTS: A 40-year-old individual gains 0.0006 QALYs and savings of £6.75 over the model lifetime by attending a high-performing trust compared with attending a middle-performing trust and gains 0.0012 QALYs and savings of £14.64 compared with attending a low-performing trust. For the population of England aged between 40 and 86, if all low and middle-performing trusts were improved to the level of a high-performing trust, QALY gains of 14 044 and cost savings of £249 311 295 are possible. Higher quality trusts dominated lower quality trusts; any improvement in the PCCRC rate was cost-effective. CONCLUSION: Improving the quality of endoscopy services would lead to QALY gains among the population, in addition to cost savings to the healthcare provider. If all middle and low-performing trusts were improved to the level of a high-performing trust, our results estimate that the English National Health Service would save approximately £5 million per year.

Using a dark logic model to explore adverse effects in audit and feedback: a qualitative study of gaming in colonoscopy.

BACKGROUND: Audit and feedback (A&F) interventions improve patient care but may result in unintended consequences. To evaluate plausible harms and maximise benefits, theorisation using logic models can be useful. We aimed to explore the adverse effects of colonoscopy A&F using a feedback intervention theory (FIT) dark logic model before the National Endoscopy Database Automated Performance Reports to Improve Quality Outcomes Trial study. METHODS: We undertook a qualitative study exploring A&F practices in colonoscopy. Interviews were undertaken with endoscopists from six English National Health Service endoscopy centres, purposively sampled for professional background and experience. A thematic framework analysis was performed, mapping paradoxical effects and harms using FIT and the theory of planned behaviour. RESULTS: Data saturation was achieved on the 19th participant, with participants from nursing, surgical and medical backgrounds and a median of 7 years' experience.When performance was below aspirational targets participants were falsely reassured by social comparisons. Participants described confidence as a requirement for colonoscopy. Negative feedback without a plan to improve risked reducing confidence and impeding performance (cognitive interference). Unmet targets increased anxiety and prompted participants to question messages' motives and consider gaming.Participants described inaccurate documentation of subjective measures, including patient comfort, to achieve targets perceived as important. Participants described causing harm from persevering to complete procedures despite patient discomfort and removing insignificant polyps to improve detection rates without benefiting the patient. CONCLUSION: Our dark logic model highlighted that A&F interventions may create both desired and adverse effects. Without a priori theorisation evaluations may disregard potential harms. In colonoscopy, improved patient experience measures may reduce harm. To address cognitive interference the motivation of feedback to support improvement should always be clear, with plans targeting specific behaviours and offering face-to-face support for confidence. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN11126923.