A Novel Multidisciplinary Team Activation for Patients with Severe Gastrointestinal Bleeding: Creation of the Code GI Bleed Protocol.

Patients with gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding present to the emergency department (ED) with a wide spectrum of illness severity. Among the most critically ill patients, comorbidities and other risk factors, such as liver disease and anticoagulation, can complicate their management. These patients are resource-intensive to stabilize and resuscitate, often requiring the continuous attention of multiple ED staff members along with rapid mobilization of specialty care. At a tertiary care hospital with the ability to provide definitive care for the most critically ill patients with GI bleeding, we introduced a multi-disciplinary team activation pathway to bring together specialists to immediately respond to the ED. We designed a Code GI Bleed pathway to expedite hemodynamic stabilization, diagnostics, source control, and timely disposition out of the ED to the intensive care unit or relevant procedural area of the hospital.

The SAFE-T upper endoscopy tool: a web-based application for the point-of-care evaluation of gastroenterology fellow performance in upper endoscopy.

BACKGROUND: Attending assessment is a critical part of endoscopic education for gastroenterology fellows. The aim of this study was to develop and validate a concise, web-based assessment tool to evaluate real-time fellow performance in upper endoscopy. METHODS: We developed the Skill Assessment in Fellow Endoscopy Training (SAFE-T) upper endoscopy tool to capture both summative and formative feedback in a concise, five-part questionnaire. The tool mirrors the previously validated SAFE-T colonoscopy tool and is administered electronically via a web-based application. We evaluated the tool in a prospective study of 15 gastroenterology fellows (5 fellows each from Years 1-3 of training) over the 2018-2019 academic year. An independent reviewer evaluated a subset of these procedures and completed both the SAFE-T and Assessment of Competency in Endoscopy (ACE) upper endoscopy forms for reliability testing. RESULTS: Twenty faculty completed 413 SAFE-T evaluations of the 15 fellows in the study. The mean SAFE-T overall score differentiated each sequential fellow year of training, with first-year cases having lower performance than second-year cases (3.31 vs 4.25, P < 0.001) and second-year cases having lower performance than third-year cases (4.25 vs 4.56, P < 0.001). The mean SAFE-T overall score decreased with increasing case-complexity score, with straightforward compared with average cases (3.98 vs 3.39, P < 0.001) and average compared with challenging cases (3.39 vs 2.84, P = 0.042). In dual-observed procedures, the SAFE-T tool showed excellent inter-rater reliability with a Kappa agreement statistic of 0.815 (P = 0.001). The SAFE-T overall score also highly correlated with the ACE upper endoscopy overall hands-on score (r = 0.76, P = 0.011). CONCLUSIONS: We developed and validated the SAFE-T upper endoscopy tool-a concise and web-based means of assessing real-time gastroenterology fellow performance in upper endoscopy.

The SAFE-T assessment tool: derivation and validation of a web-based application for point-of-care evaluation of gastroenterology fellow performance in colonoscopy.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Attending assessment is a critical part of endoscopic education for gastroenterology fellows. The aim of this study was to develop and validate a concise assessment tool to evaluate real-time fellow performance in colonoscopy administered via a web-based application. METHODS: The Skill Assessment in Fellow Endoscopy Training (SAFE-T) tool was derived as a novel 5-question evaluation tool that captures both summative and formative feedback adapted into a web-based application. A prospective study of 15 gastroenterology fellows (5 fellows each from years 1 to 3 of training) was performed using the SAFE-T tool. An independent reviewer evaluated a subset of these procedures and completed the SAFE-T tool and Mayo Colonoscopy Skills Assessment Tool (MCSAT) for reliability testing. RESULTS: Twenty-six faculty completed 350 SAFE-T evaluations of the 15 fellows in the study. The mean SAFE-T overall score (year 1, 2.00; year 2, 3.84; year 3, 4.28) differentiated each sequential fellow year of training (P < .0001). The mean SAFE-T overall score decreased with increasing case complexity score, with straightforward cases compared with average cases (4.07 vs 3.50, P < .0001), and average cases compared with challenging cases (3.50 vs 3.08, P = .0134). In dual-observed procedures, the SAFE-T tool showed excellent inter-rater reliability with a kappa agreement statistic of 0.898 (P < .0001). Correlation of the SAFE-T overall score with the MCSAT overall hands-on and individual motor scores was excellent (each r > 0.90, P < .0001). CONCLUSIONS: We developed and validated the SAFE-T assessment tool, a concise and web-based means of assessing real-time gastroenterology fellow performance in colonoscopy.

Perceptions of the Inpatient Training Experience: A Nationwide Survey of Gastroenterology Program Directors and Fellows.

BACKGROUND: Inpatient training is a key component of gastroenterology (GI) fellowship programs nationwide, yet little is known about perceptions of the inpatient training experience. AIM: To compare the content, objectives and quality of the inpatient training experience as perceived by program directors (PD) and fellows in US ACGME-accredited GI fellowship programs. METHODS: We conducted a nationwide, online-based survey of GI PDs and fellows at the conclusion of the 2016 academic year. We queried participants about (1) the current models of inpatient training, (2) the content, objectives, and quality of the inpatient training experience, and (3) the frequency and quality of educational activities on the inpatient service. We analyzed five-point Likert items and rank assessments as continuous variables by an independent t test and compared proportions using the Chi-square test. RESULTS: Survey response rate was 48.4% (75/155) for PDs and a total of 194 fellows completed the survey, with both groups reporting the general GI consult team (>90%) as the primary model of inpatient training. PDs and fellows agreed on the ranking of all queried responsibilities of the inpatient fellow to develop during the inpatient service. However, fellows indicated that attendings spent less time teaching and provided less formal feedback than that perceived by PDs (p < 0.0001). PDs rated the overall quality of the inpatient training experience (p < 0.0001) and education on the wards (p = 0.0003) as better than overall ratings by fellows. CONCLUSION: Although GI fellows and PDs agree on the importance of specific fellow responsibilities on the inpatient service, fellows report experiencing less teaching and feedback from attendings than that perceived by PDs. Committing more time to education and assessment may improve fellows' perceptions of the inpatient training experience.

Impact of physician compliance with colonoscopy surveillance guidelines on interval colorectal cancer.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Interval colorectal cancer (iCRC) incidence is the criterion standard benchmark for measuring the effectiveness of colonoscopy. Colonoscopy surveillance guidelines are designed to minimize iCRC cases. Our aims were to describe characteristics of iCRC patients and to assess whether development of iCRC is related to colonoscopy surveillance guideline intervals. METHODS: We performed a retrospective cohort study of postcolonoscopy iCRC cases in a large healthcare system. Guideline-based colonoscopy intervals were calculated based on the 2012 U.S. Multi-Society Task Force for Colorectal Cancer colonoscopy surveillance guidelines. Backward stepwise linear regression was used to determine predictors of iCRC before guideline-recommended follow-up intervals. RESULTS: We identified 245 iCRC cases (mean age, 69.4 years; 56.3% male) out of 5345 colon cancers evaluated for a prevalence of 4.60%. On index colonoscopy, 75.1% had an adequate preparation, 93.0% reached the cecum, and 52.5% had polyps. iCRC developed before the guideline-recommended interval in 59.1% of patients (94/159). Independent predictive factors of this finding were inadequate preparation (OR, .012; 95% CI, .003-.06; P < .0001) and ≥3 polyps on index colonoscopy (OR, .2; 95% CI, .078-.52; P = .0009). An endoscopist-recommended follow-up interval past the guideline-recommended interval was seen in 23.9% of cases (38/159). Most (34/38, 89.5%) of these iCRCs had inadequate preparation and were diagnosed after the guideline-based follow-up interval. CONCLUSIONS: Current colonoscopy surveillance guidelines may be inadequate to prevent many iCRC cases. Physician noncompliance with guideline-based surveillance intervals may increase in iCRC cases, especially in patients with an initially inadequate bowel preparation.