Association Between Endoscopist Specialty and Colonoscopy Quality: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Colonoscopy quality indicators provide measurable assessments of performance, but significant provider-level variations exist. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess whether endoscopist specialty is associated with adenoma detection rate (ADR) - the primary outcome - or cecal intubation rate, adverse event rates, and post-colonoscopy colorectal cancer rates. METHODS: We searched EMBASE, Google Scholar, MEDLINE, and the Cochrane Central Registry of Controlled Trials from inception to December 14, 2020. Two reviewers independently screened titles and abstracts. Citations underwent duplicate full-text review, with disagreements resolved by a third reviewer. Data were abstracted in duplicate. The DerSimonian and Laird random effects model was used to calculate pooled odds ratios (ORs) with respective 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Risk of bias was assessed using Risk of Bias in Non-randomised Studies of Interventions. RESULTS: Of 11,314 citations, 36 studies representing 3,500,832 colonoscopies were included. Compared with colonoscopies performed by gastroenterologists, those by surgeons were associated with lower ADRs (OR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.74-0.88) and lower cecal intubation rates (OR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.63-0.92). Compared with colonoscopies performed by gastroenterologists, those by other (non-gastroenterologist, non-surgeon) endoscopists were associated with lower ADRs (OR, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.87-0.96), higher perforation rates (OR, 3.02; 95% CI, 1.65-5.51), and higher post-colonoscopy colorectal cancer rates (OR, 1.23; 95% CI, 1.14-1.33). Substantial to considerable heterogeneity existed for most analyses, and overall certainty in the evidence was low according to the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations framework. CONCLUSION: Colonoscopies performed by surgeons or other endoscopists were associated with poorer quality metrics and outcomes compared with those performed by gastroenterologists. Targeted quality improvement efforts may be warranted.

Association Between Endoscopist Annual Procedure Volume and Colonoscopy Quality: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: In addition to monitoring adverse events (AEs) and post-colonoscopy colorectal cancers (PCCRC), indicators for assessing colonoscopy quality include adenoma detection rate (ADR) and cecal intubation rate (CIR). It is unclear whether there is an association between annual colonoscopy volume and ADR, CIR, AEs, or PCCRC. METHODS: We searched publication databases through March 2019 for studies assessing the relationship between annual colonoscopy volume and outcomes, including ADR, CIR, AEs, or PCCRC. Pooled odds ratios (ORs) were calculated using DerSimonian and Laird random effects models. Sensitivity analyses were performed to assess for potential methodological or clinical factors associated with outcomes. RESULTS: We performed a systematic review of 9235 initial citations, generating 27 retained studies comprising 11,276,244 colonoscopies. There was no association between procedural volume and ADR (OR, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.98-1.02 per additional 100 annual procedures). CIR improved with each additional 100 annual procedures (OR, 1.17; 95% CI, 1.08-1.28). There was a non-significant trend toward decreased overall AEs per additional 100 annual procedures (OR, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.90-1.00). There was considerable heterogeneity among most analyses. CONCLUSIONS: In a systematic review and meta-analysis, we found higher annual colonoscopy volumes to correlate with higher CIR, but not with ADR or PCCRC. Trends toward fewer AEs were associated with higher annual colonoscopy volumes. There are few data available from endoscopists who perform fewer than 100 annual colonoscopies. Studies are needed on extremes in performance volumes to more clearly elucidate associations between colonoscopy volumes and outcomes.

Improving capacity to care for patients with intellectual and developmental disabilities: The value of an experiential learning model for family medicine residents.

BACKGROUND: Patients with intellectual and developmental disabilities (IDD) are more likely to experience poor health outcomes and family physicians receive inadequate training to provide appropriate care to this patient group. Little prior research has studied how to effectively train family physicians to care for patients with IDD. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this pilot study was to assess the value of adding an experiential component to didactic education strategies to improve family medicine resident perceived comfort, skills and knowledge related to caring for patients with IDD. METHODS: Structured education programs for residents were implemented at three primary care practices in Ontario, Canada. Two practices received didactic information only (didactic-only group); one received didactic information and an experiential training model including clinical interactions and a written reflection on that experience (didactic plus experiential group). In this separate-sample pre-post design, residents were invited to complete a brief anonymous survey prior to and following the training assessing their perceived comfort, skills and knowledge related to patients with IDD. RESULTS: At baseline, there were no significant differences between the two groups of residents. At follow up, the experiential group reported significantly higher levels of comfort, skills, and knowledge compared to baseline for most items assessed, while in the didactic-only group most items showed little or no improvement. CONCLUSION: This pilot study suggests that providing residents the opportunity to participate in clinical encounters with patients with IDD, as well as a structured process to reflect on such encounters, results in greater benefit than didactic training alone.

Mesenchymal Stromal/Stem Cells in Regenerative Medicine and Tissue Engineering.

As a result of over five decades of investigation, mesenchymal stromal/stem cells (MSCs) have emerged as a versatile and frequently utilized cell source in the fields of regenerative medicine and tissue engineering. In this review, we summarize the history of MSC research from the initial discovery of their multipotency to the more recent recognition of their perivascular identity in vivo and their extraordinary capacity for immunomodulation and angiogenic signaling. As well, we discuss long-standing questions regarding their developmental origins and their capacity for differentiation toward a range of cell lineages. We also highlight important considerations and potential risks involved with their isolation, ex vivo expansion, and clinical use. Overall, this review aims to serve as an overview of the breadth of research that has demonstrated the utility of MSCs in a wide range of clinical contexts and continues to unravel the mechanisms by which these cells exert their therapeutic effects.