The timing of recurrence after endoscopic papillectomy.

BACKGROUND: Endoscopic papillectomy (EP) offers a safe and effective method for resection of ampullary adenomas. Data regarding the long-term resolution of adenoma following EP are limited. The aim of this study therefore was to examine the timing of recurrence after EP of ampullary adenomas. METHODS: This was a single-center retrospective study including patients who received EP for ampullary adenomas from 8/2000 to 1/2018. Patients with confirmed complete eradication of adenoma were included in the recurrence analysis with recurrence defined as finding adenomatous histology after 1 negative surveillance endoscopy. Kaplan-Meier estimates were calculated to determine recurrence rates. RESULTS: Of the 165 patients who underwent EP, 136 patients (mean age 61.9, 51.5% female) had adenomatous histology with a mean lesion size of 21.2 mm. A total of 124 (91.2%) achieved complete eradication with a follow-up of 345.8 person-years. Recurrence occurred in 20 (16.1%) patients at a mean of 3.2 (± 3) years (range 0.5-9.75 years) for a recurrence rate of 5.8 (95% CI 3.6-8.8) per 100 person-years. Nine (45%) recurrences occurred after the 1st 2 years of surveillance. Recurrence rate did not differ by baseline pathology [low-grade dysplasia: 5.2 (95% CI 3.0-9.0), high-grade dysplasia: 6.9 (95% CI 2.3-15.5), adenocarcinoma: 7.7 (95% CI 0.9-25.1)]. CONCLUSION: Recurrence remains a significant concern after EP. Given the timing of recurrence, long surveillance periods may be necessary. Larger multicenter studies are needed, however, to determine appropriate surveillance intervals.

Optimizing Endoscopy Procedure Documentation Improves Guideline-Adherent Care in Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Upper GI bleeding (UGIB) is a common indication for inpatient esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD). Guideline adherence improves post-EGD care, including appropriate medication dosing/duration and follow-up procedures that reduce UGIB-related morbidity. We aimed to optimize and standardize post-EGD documentation to improve process and clinical outcomes in UGIB-related care. METHODS: We performed a prospective quality improvement study of inpatient UGIB endoscopies at an academic tertiary referral center during 6/2019-7/2021. Guidelines were used to develop etiology/severity-specific electronic health record note templates. Participants (39 faculty/15 trainees) completed 10-min training in template content/use. We collected pre/post-intervention process data on "Minimal Standard Report" (MSR) documentation including patient disposition, diet, and medications. We also recorded documentation of re-bleed precautions and follow-up procedures. Study outcomes included guideline-based medication prescriptions, ordering of follow-up EGD, and post-discharge re-bleeding. Pre/post-intervention analysis was performed using chi-square tests. RESULTS: From a pre-intervention baseline of 199 patients to 459 patients post-intervention, compliance improved with inpatient PPI (53.4-77.9%, p < 0.001) and discharge PPI (31.3-61.0%, p < 0.001) prescriptions. There was improvement in MSR completion (28.6-42.5%, p < 0.001). Compliance improved with octreotide prescriptions (75.0-93.6%, p = 0.002) and follow-up EGD order (61.3-87.1%, p < 0.001). There was no change in post-discharge re-bleeding. 82.6% of cases used templates. CONCLUSIONS: Our project leveraged endoscopy software to standardize documentation, resulting in improved clinical care behavior and efficiency. Our intervention required low burden of maintenance, and sustainability with high utilization over 9 months. Similar endoscopy templates can be applied to other health systems and procedures to improve care.

Cecal retroflexion is infrequently performed in routine practice and the retroflexed view is of poor quality.

BACKGROUND: As right colon polyps are challenging to detect, a retroflexed view of right colon (RV) may be useful. However, cecal retroflexion (CR) without a RV to the hepatic flexure (HF) is inadequate. We aimed to determine the frequency of CR and quality of the RV in routine practice. METHODS: This prospective observational study performed at an academic medical center assessed colonoscopy inspection technique of endoscopists who had performed ≥ 100 annual screening colonoscopies. We video recorded ≥ 28 screening/surveillance colonoscopies per endoscopist and randomly evaluated 7 videos per endoscopist. Six gastroenterologists blindly reviewed the videos to determine if CR was performed and HF withdrawal time (cecum to HF time, excluding ileal/polypectomy time). RESULTS: Reviewers assessed 119 colonoscopies performed by 17 endoscopists. The median HF withdrawal time was 3 min and 46 s. CR was performed in 31% of colonoscopies. CR frequency varied between endoscopists with 9 never performing CR and 2 performing CR in all colonoscopies. When performed, nearly half (43%) of RVs did not extend to the HF with median RV duration of 16 s (IQR 9-30 s). Three polyps were identified in the RV (polyp detection rate of 8.1%), all identified prior to a forward view. CONCLUSIONS: CR is performed infrequently in routine practice. When CR is performed, the RV is of low quality with a very short inspection duration and insufficient ascending colon examination. Further education is required to educate endoscopists in optimal technique to improve overall colonoscopy quality.

Colonoscopy-Naïve Raters Can Be Trained to Assess Colonoscopy Quality.

The ability of a colonoscopist to detect colon polyps is commonly measured by the adenoma detection rate (ADR). The outcome of colonoscopy varies based on ADR, and the relationship between decreasing provider ADR and the increased risk of subsequent fatal colorectal cancer has been clearly established.1 Despite the importance of provider ADR, it is of limited value at lower provider volumes due to imprecise measurements. We have previously shown that ratings of colonoscopy inspection quality (CIQ) from video-taped colonoscopies by experts highly correlate with provider ADR, and can provide colonoscopists with specific techniques in need of remediation.2 It is unclear, however, whether these video-based evaluations are a feasible method of assessing colonoscopy quality due to a reliance upon expert evaluations. The primary aim of this study was to determine whether video-based assessments of colonoscopy inspection quality by colonoscopy-naïve raters (novice raters) correlate with assessments by expert raters and with established colonoscopy quality metrics.

Time Given to Trainees to Attempt Cannulation During Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography Varies by Training Program and Is Not Associated With Competence.

Advanced endoscopy training programs (AETPs) were developed as a result of the lack of comprehensive endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) training during gastroenterology fellowships. There is no standardized curriculum for AETPs and the influence of program- and trainer-associated factors on trainee competence in ERCP has not been investigated adequately. In prior work, we showed that advanced endoscopy trainees (AETs) achieve ERCP competence at varying rates.1,2 The aims of this study were to measure the variability in time given to AETs to attempt cannulation between AETPs and throughout the 1-year training period, and to determine the association between AET cannulation time and AET competence at the end of training.

Effect of individualized feedback on learning curves in EGD and colonoscopy: a cluster randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Gastroenterology fellowships need to ensure that trainees achieve competence in upper endoscopy (EGD) and colonoscopy. Because the impact of structured feedback remains unknown in endoscopy training, this study compared the effect of structured feedback with standard feedback on trainee learning curves for EGD and colonoscopy. METHODS: In this multicenter, cluster, randomized controlled trial, trainees received either individualized quarterly learning curves or feedback standard to their fellowship. Assessment was performed in all trainees using the Assessment of Competency in Endoscopy tool on 5 consecutive procedures after every 25 EGDs and colonoscopies. Individual learning curves were created using cumulative sum (CUSUM) analysis. The primary outcome was the mean CUSUM score in overall technical and overall cognitive skills. RESULTS: In all, 13 programs including 132 trainees participated. The intervention arm (6 programs, 51 trainees) contributed 558 EGD and 600 colonoscopy assessments. The control arm (7 programs, 81 trainees) provided 305 EGD and 468 colonoscopy assessments. For EGD, the intervention arm (-.7 [standard deviation {SD}, 1.3]) had a superior mean CUSUM score in overall cognitive skills compared with the control arm (1.6 [SD, .8], P = .03) but not in overall technical skills (intervention, -.26 [SD, 1.4]; control, 1.76 [SD, .7]; P = .06). For colonoscopy, no differences were found between the 2 arms in overall cognitive skills (intervention, -.7 [SD, 1.3]; control, .7 [SD, 1.3]; P = .95) or overall technical skills (intervention, .1 [SD, 1.5]; control, -.1 [SD, 1.5]; P = .77). CONCLUSIONS: Quarterly feedback in the form of individualized learning curves did not affect learning curves for EGD and colonoscopy in a clinically meaningful manner. (Clinical trial registration number: NCT02891304.).

Adding efficiency to proficiency: a study of trainee polypectomy efficiency metrics.

BACKGROUND: Although validated colonoscopy assessment tools exist, they do not measure efficiency. This study aimed to assess content validity of polypectomy efficiency (PE) and neoplastic polypectomy efficiency (NPE) as colonoscopy efficiency indices. METHODS: Data from a randomized controlled trial evaluating polypectomy among gastroenterology trainees were utilized. PE and NPE were defined as number of polyps (or neoplastic polyps) removed/withdrawal time × 100. Content validity was assessed by determining the association between efficiency indices and polypectomy times. RESULTS: 20 trainees performed 601 colonoscopies. There was a strong association between PE/NPE and actual polypectomy times: as polypectomy time increased by 1 minute, the PE decreased by 0.48 (P = 0.001) and NPE decreased by 0.24 (P = 0.03). CONCLUSIONS: The study proposed and provided content validity for PE and NPE as colonoscopy efficiency indices.

Video-Based Assessments of Colonoscopy Inspection Quality Correlate With Quality Metrics and Highlight Areas for Improvement.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Adenoma detection rate (ADR) and serrated polyp detection rate (SDR) vary significantly among colonoscopists. Colonoscopy inspection quality (CIQ) is the quality with which a colonoscopist inspects for polyps and may explain some of this variation. We aimed to determine the relationship between CIQ and historical ADRs and SDRs in a cohort of colonoscopists and assess whether there is variation in CIQ components (fold examination, cleaning, and luminal distension) among colonoscopists with similar ADRs and SDRs. METHODS: We conducted a prospective observational study to assess CIQ among 17 high-volume colonoscopists at an academic medical center. Over 6 weeks, we video-recorded >28 colonoscopies per colonoscopist and randomly selected 7 colonoscopies per colonoscopist for evaluation. Six raters graded CIQ using an established scale, with a maximum whole colon score of 75. RESULTS: We evaluated 119 colonoscopies. The median whole-colon CIQ score was 50.1/75. Whole-colon CIQ score (r=0.71; P<.01) and component scores (fold examination r=0.74; cleaning r=0.67; distension r=0.77; all P<.01) correlated with ADR. Proximal colon CIQ score (r=0.67; P<.01) and component scores (fold examination r=0.71; cleaning r=0.62; distension r=0.65; all P<.05) correlated with SDR. CIQ component scores differed significantly between colonoscopists with similar ADRs and SDRs for most of the CIQ skills. CONCLUSION: In a prospective observational study, we found CIQ and CIQ components to correlate with ADR and SDR. Colonoscopists with similar ADRs and SDRs differ in their performance of the 3 CIQ components-specific, actionable feedback might improve colonoscopy technique.

Colon polypectomy report card improves polypectomy competency: results of a prospective quality improvement study (with video).

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Polypectomy competency varies significantly among providers. Poor polypectomy technique may lead to interval cancer and/or adverse events. Our aim was to determine the effect of a polypectomy skills report card on subsequent polypectomy performance. METHODS: We conducted a 3-phase, prospective, single-blinded study. In phase 1 ("baseline"), we graded 10 polypectomies per endoscopist using the Direct Observation of Polypectomy Skills (DOPyS) tool (scores 1-4); mean overall scores ≥3 are competent. In phase 2 ("pre-report card"), we selected 10 additional polypectomies per endoscopist. We subsequently gave endoscopists a report card with baseline scores and instructional videos demonstrating optimal polypectomy technique. In phase 3 ("post-report card"), 10 additional polypectomies per endoscopist were selected. Raters, blinded to study phase, graded 10 pre- and 10 post-report card polypectomies per endoscopist. We compared mean DOPyS scores and rate of competent polypectomy in the pre- and post-report card phases. RESULTS: We graded 110 pre- and 110 post-report card polypectomies performed by 11 endoscopists. The mean DOPyS score increased between the pre- and post-report card phases (2.7 ± .9 vs 3.0 ± .8, P = .01); this improvement was seen for diminutive (P < .0001) but not for small-to-large polyps. Rate of competent polypectomy significantly improved from the pre- to post-report card phase (56% vs 69%, P = .04); this improvement was seen for diminutive (57% vs 81%, P = .001) but not for small-to-large polyps (55% vs 36%, P = .2). CONCLUSIONS: Report cards with educational videos effectively improved polypectomy technique, primarily because of improvements in resecting diminutive polyps. The improved competency and decreased piecemeal resection may reduce the risk of polyp recurrence. Further education is needed to improve larger polyp resection.

Development and validation of a video-based cold snare polypectomy assessment tool (with videos).

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Polyps <1 cm are the most commonly found polyps during colonoscopy. Cold snare removal is preferred given the significantly higher rate of incomplete resection associated with piecemeal biopsy forceps resection. There are currently no standardized tools to assess competence in cold snare polypectomy. This study aimed to develop and validate a cold snare polypectomy assessment tool (CSPAT). METHODS: Experts in cold snare polypectomy used a Delphi method to develop the CSPAT. Metrics with a greater than 85% agreement as being "important" or "very important" were included in the CSPAT. The tool included evaluation of polyp inspection, positioning, appropriate ensnarement of tissue to ensure a rim of normal tissue, tissue retrieval, and postpolypectomy site inspection. Experts in cold snare polypectomy used the CSPAT to evaluate preselected videos that were previously evaluated using the Direct Observation of Polypectomy Skills (DOPyS) tool. Interobserver agreement was evaluated. CSPAT scores were compared with DOPyS scores to assess content validity. RESULTS: Sixteen experts developed the 12-item CSPAT, and 13 experts reviewed 55 videos. There was a moderate degree of agreement in 10 metrics (κ = .52-.59) and a substantial degree of agreement (κ = .61-.63) in the other 2. There was a strong correlation between the mean of individual metrics 1 to 12 compared with the global competence assessment (ρ = .88, P < .001). There was a moderate correlation between the average overall DOPyS score and the overall CSPAT competence score (ρ = .56, P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: We have developed and validated a customized CSPAT that can be easily applied to video-based assessments to assess competence in training and among practicing endoscopists.

Assessing colon polypectomy competency and its association with established quality metrics.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Inadequate polypectomy leads to incomplete resection, interval colorectal cancer, and adverse events. However, polypectomy competency is rarely reported, and quality metrics are lacking. The primary aims of this study were to assess polypectomy competency among a cohort of gastroenterologists and to measure the correlation between polypectomy competency and established colonoscopy quality metrics (adenoma detection rate and withdrawal time). METHODS: We conducted a prospective observational study to assess polypectomy competency among 13 high-volume screening colonoscopists at an academic medical center. Over 6 weeks, we made video recordings of ≥28 colonoscopies per colonoscopist and randomly selected 10 polypectomies per colonoscopist for evaluation. Two raters graded the polypectomies by using the Direct Observation of Polypectomy Skills, a polypectomy competency assessment tool, which assesses individual polypectomy skills and overall competency. RESULTS: We evaluated 130 polypectomies. A total of 83 polypectomies (64%) were rated as competent, which was more likely for diminutive (70%) than small and/or large polyps (50%, P = .03). Overall Direct Observation of Polypectomy Skills competency scores varied significantly among colonoscopists (P = .001), with overall polypectomy competency rates ranging between 30% and 90%. Individual skills scores, such as accurately directing the snare over the lesion (P = .02) and trapping an appropriate amount of tissue within the snare (P = .001) varied significantly between colonoscopists. Polypectomy competency rates did not significantly correlate with the adenoma detection rate (r = 0.4; P = .2) or withdrawal time (r = 0.2; P = .5). CONCLUSIONS: Polypectomy competency varies significantly among colonoscopists and does not sufficiently correlate with established quality metrics. Given the clinical implications of suboptimal polypectomy, efforts to educate colonoscopists in polypectomy techniques and develop a metric of polypectomy quality are needed.

Quality Indicators for the Detection and Removal of Colorectal Polyps and Interventions to Improve Them.

Modifiable risk factors for postcolonoscopy colorectal cancer include suboptimal lesion detection (missed neoplasms) and inadequate lesion removal (incomplete polypectomy) during colonoscopy. Competent detection and removal of colorectal polyps are thus fundamental to ensuring adequate colonoscopy quality. Several well-researched quality metrics for polyp detection have been implemented into clinical practice, chief among these the adenoma detection rate. Less data are available on quality indicators for polyp removal, which currently include complete resection rates and skills assessment tools. This review summarizes the available literature on quality indicators for the detection and removal of colorectal polyps, as well as interventions to improve them.