Systematic Review and Meta-analysis: The Three-year Post-colonoscopy Colorectal Cancer Rate as per the World Endoscopy Organization Methodology.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: In 2018, the World Endoscopy Organization (WEO) introduced standardized methods for calculating post-colonoscopy colorectal cancer-3yr rates (PCCRC-3yr). This systematic review aimed to calculate the global PCCRC-3yr according to the WEO methodology, its change over time, and to measure the association between risk factors and PCCRC occurrences. METHODS: We searched 5 databases from inception until January 2024 for PCCRC-3yr studies that strictly adhered to the WEO methodology. The overall pooled PCCRC-3yr was calculated. For risk factors and time-trend analyses, the pooled PCCRC-3yr and odds ratios (ORs) of subgroups were compared. RESULTS: Several studies failed to adhere to the WEO methodology. Eight studies from 4 Western European and 2 Northern American countries were included, totalling 220,106 detected-colorectal cancers (CRCs) and 18,148 PCCRCs between 2002 and 2017. The pooled Western World PCCRC-3yr was 7.5% (95% confidence interval [CI], 6.4%-8.7%). The PCCRC-3yr significantly (P < .05) decreased from 7.9% (95% CI, 6.6%-9.4%) in 2006 to 6.7% (95% CI, 6.1%-7.3%) in 2012 (OR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.72-0.87). There were significantly higher rates for people with inflammatory bowel disease (PCCRC-3yr, 29.3%; OR, 6.17; 95% CI, 4.73-8.06), prior CRC (PCCRC-3yr, 29.8%; OR, 3.03; 95% CI, 1.34-4.72), proximal CRC (PCCRC-3yr, 8.6%; OR, 1.51; 95% CI, 1.41-1.61), diverticular disease (PCCRC 3-yr, 11.6%; OR, 1.74; 95% CI, 1.37-2.10), and female sex (PCCRC-3yr, 7.9%; OR, 1.15; 95% CI, 1.11-1.20). CONCLUSION: According to the WEO methodology, the Western World PCCRC-3yr was 7.5%. Reassuringly, this has decreased over time, but further work is required to identify the reasons for PCCRCs, especially in higher-risk groups. We devised a WEO methodology checklist to increase its adoption and standardise the categorization of patients in future PCCRC-3yr studies.

Nationally Automated Colonoscopy Performance Feedback Increases Polyp Detection: The NED APRIQOT Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Postcolonoscopy colorectal cancer incidence and mortality rates are higher for endoscopists with low polyp detection rates. Using the UK's National Endoscopy Database (NED), which automatically captures real-time data, we assessed if providing feedback of case-mix-adjusted mean number of polyps (aMNP), as a key performance indicator, improved endoscopists' performance. Feedback was delivered via a theory-informed, evidence-based audit and feedback intervention. METHODS: This multicenter, prospective, NED Automated Performance Reports to Improve Quality Outcomes Trial randomized National Health Service endoscopy centers to intervention or control. Intervention-arm endoscopists were e-mailed tailored monthly reports automatically generated within NED, informed by qualitative interviews and behavior change theory. The primary outcome was endoscopists' aMNP during the 9-month intervention. RESULTS: From November 2020 to July 2021, 541 endoscopists across 36 centers (19 intervention; 17 control) performed 54,770 procedures during the intervention, and 15,960 procedures during the 3-month postintervention period. Comparing the intervention arm with the control arm, endoscopists during the intervention period: aMNP was nonsignificantly higher (7%; 95% CI, -1% to 14%; P = .08). The unadjusted MNP (10%; 95% CI, 1%-20%) and polyp detection rate (10%; 95% CI, 4%-16%) were significantly higher. Differences were not maintained in the postintervention period. In the intervention arm, endoscopists accessing NED Automated Performance Reports to Improve Quality Outcomes Trial webpages had a higher aMNP than those who did not (aMNP, 118 vs 102; P = .03). CONCLUSIONS: Although our automated feedback intervention did not increase aMNP significantly in the intervention period, MNP and polyp detection rate did improve significantly. Engaged endoscopists benefited most and improvements were not maintained postintervention; future work should address engagement in feedback and consider the effectiveness of continuous feedback. CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRY:  www.isrctn.org ISRCTN11126923 .

Application of Duty of Candour legislation in post-colonoscopy colorectal cancer: a prospective cohort study.

Background & Study Aims The study investigates the application of Duty of Candour (DoC) legislation in the context of post-colonoscopy colorectal cancers (PCCRCs). DoC mandates transparent disclosure of notifiable safety incidents to patients in the English National Health Service, including those leading to severe or moderate harm. This study aims to analyse the application of DoC in PCCRCs, improve understanding of the legislation and identify challenges in its implementation. Patients & Methods A national audit of PCCRCs was conducted between September 2021 to May 2022. PCCRCs were identified using linked administrative datasets and root-cause analyses were performed using a structured template. 1,724 PCCRCs were included. 'Avoidability' and harm categorised into specific levels, with guidance provided to improve consistency in judgments. Results 16% of PCCRCs resulted in major harm or death, of which 27%(75) were at least probably avoidable. Hospitals deemed DoC discharge necessary in only 53% of these cases. When including moderate harm, 11% of all PCCRCs would trigger DoC discharge, yet this was deemed necessary in only 41% of these cases. Conclusions There is inconsistent application of DoC in PCCRC cases. Challenges include determining 'avoidability' and harm, particularly when there is a delay in diagnosis. Clearer guidance and definitions of harm are needed to improve adherence to regulations.

Inflammatory Bowel Disease-Associated Colorectal Cancer Epidemiology and Outcomes: An English Population-Based Study.

INTRODUCTION: Patients with inflammatory bowel diseases (IBDs) of the colon are at an increased risk of colorectal cancer (CRC). This study investigates the epidemiology of IBD-CRC and its outcomes. METHODS: Using population data from the English National Health Service held in the CRC data repository, all CRCs with and without prior diagnosis of IBD (Crohn's, ulcerative colitis, IBD unclassified, and IBD with cholangitis) between 2005 and 2018 were identified. Descriptive analyses and logistic regression models were used to compare the characteristics of the 2 groups and their outcomes up to 2 years. RESULTS: Three hundred ninety thousand six hundred fourteen patients diagnosed with CRC were included, of whom 5,141 (1.3%) also had a previous diagnosis of IBD. IBD-CRC cases were younger (median age at CRC diagnosis [interquartile range] 66 [54-76] vs 72 [63-79] years [ P < 0.01]), more likely to be diagnosed with CRC as an emergency (25.1% vs 16.7% [ P < 0.01]), and more likely to have a right-sided colonic tumor (37.4% vs 31.5% [ P < 0.01]). Total colectomy was performed in 36.3% of those with IBD (15.4% of Crohn's, 44.1% of ulcerative colitis, 44.5% of IBD unclassified, and 67.7% of IBD with cholangitis). Synchronous (3.2% vs 1.6% P < 0.01) and metachronous tumors (1.7% vs 0.9% P < 0.01) occurred twice as frequently in patients with IBD compared with those without IBD. Stage-specific survival up to 2 years was worse for IBD-associated cancers. DISCUSSION: IBD-associated CRCs occur in younger patients and have worse outcomes than sporadic CRCs. There is an urgent need to find reasons for these differences to inform screening, surveillance, and treatment strategies for CRC and its precursors in this high-risk group.

Causes of Post-Colonoscopy Colorectal Cancers Based on World Endoscopy Organization System of Analysis.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Postcolonoscopy colorectal cancer (PCCRC) is CRC diagnosed after a colonoscopy in which no cancer was found. A consensus article from the World Endoscopy Organization (WEO) proposed an approach for investigating and categorizing PCCRCs detected within 4 years of a colonoscopy. We aimed to identify cases of PCCRC and the factors that cause them, test the WEO system of categorization, quantify the proportion of avoidable PCCRCs, and propose a target rate for PCCRCs detected within 3 years of a colonoscopy that did not detect CRC. METHODS: We performed a retrospective analysis of 107 PCCRCs identified at a single medical center in England from January 1, 2010, through December 31, 2017 using coding and endoscopy data. For each case, we reviewed clinical, pathology, radiology, and endoscopy findings. Using the WEO recommendations, we performed a root-cause analysis of each case, categorizing lesions as follows: possible missed lesion, prior examination adequate; possible missed lesion, prior examination inadequate; detected lesion, not resected; or likely incomplete resection of previously identified lesion. We determined whether PCCRCs could be attributed to the colonoscopist for technical or decision-making reasons, and whether the PCCRC was avoidable or unavoidable, based on the WEO categorization and size of tumor. The endoscopy reporting system provided performance data for individual endoscopists. RESULTS: Of the PCCRCs identified, 43% were in high-risk patients (those with inflammatory bowel disease, previous CRC, previous multiple large polyps, or hereditary cancer syndromes) and 66% were located distal to the hepatic flexure. There was no correlation between postcolonoscopy colorectal tumor size and time to diagnosis after index colonoscopy. Bowel preparation was poor in 19% of index colonoscopies, and only 36% of complete colonoscopies had adequate photodocumentation of completion. Development of 73% of PCCRCs was determined to be affected by technical endoscopic factors, 17% of PCCRCs by administrative factors (follow-up procedures delayed/not booked by administrative staff), and 27% of PCCRCs by decision-making factors. Twenty-seven percent of PCCRCs were categorized as possible missed lesion, prior examination adequate; 58% as possible missed lesion, prior examination inadequate; 8% as detected lesion, not resected; and 7% as incomplete resection of previously observed lesion; 89% were deemed to be avoidable. CONCLUSIONS: In a retrospective analysis of PCCRCs, using the WEO system of categorization, we found 43% to occur in high-risk patients; this might be reduced with more vigilant surveillance. Measures are needed to reduce technical, decision-making, and administrative factors. We found that 89% of PCCRCs may be avoidable. If half of avoidable PCCRCs could be prevented, the target rate of 2% for the PCCRC-3y (cancer diagnosed between 6 and 36 months after index colonoscopy) benchmark would be achievable.

When and How To Use Endoscopic Tattooing in the Colon: An International Delphi Agreement.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: There is a lack of clinical studies to establish indications and methodology for tattooing, therefore technique and practice of tattooing is very variable. We aimed to establish a consensus on the indications and appropriate techniques for colonic tattoo through a modified Delphi process. METHODS: The baseline questionnaire was classified into 3 areas: where tattooing should not be used (1 domain, 6 questions), where tattooing should be used (4 domains, 20 questions), and how to perform tattooing (1 domain 20 questions). A total of 29 experts participated in the 3 rounds of the Delphi process. RESULTS: A total of 15 statements were approved. The statements that achieved the highest agreement were as follows: tattooing should always be used after endoscopic resection of a lesion with suspicion of submucosal invasion (agreement score, 4.59; degree of consensus, 97%). For a colorectal lesion that is left in situ but considered suitable for endoscopic resection, tattooing may be used if the lesion is considered difficult to detect at a subsequent endoscopy (agreement score, 4.62; degree of consensus, 100%). A tattoo should never be injected directly into or underneath a lesion that might be removed endoscopically at a later point in time (agreement score, 4.79; degree of consensus, 97%). Details of the tattoo injection should be stated clearly in the endoscopy report (agreement score, 4.76; degree of consensus, 100%). CONCLUSIONS: This expert consensus has developed different statements about where tattooing should not be used, when it should be used, and how that should be done.

World Endoscopy Organization Consensus Statements on Post-Colonoscopy and Post-Imaging Colorectal Cancer.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Colonoscopy examination does not always detect colorectal cancer (CRC)- some patients develop CRC after negative findings from an examination. When this occurs before the next recommended examination, it is called interval cancer. From a colonoscopy quality assurance perspective, that term is too restrictive, so the term post-colonoscopy colorectal cancer (PCCRC) was created in 2010. However, PCCRC definitions and methods for calculating rates vary among studies, making it impossible to compare results. We aimed to standardize the terminology, identification, analysis, and reporting of PCCRCs and CRCs detected after other whole-colon imaging evaluations (post-imaging colorectal cancers [PICRCs]). METHODS: A 20-member international team of gastroenterologists, pathologists, and epidemiologists; a radiologist; and a non-medical professional met to formulate a series of recommendations, standardize definitions and categories (to align with interval cancer terminology), develop an algorithm to determine most-plausible etiologies, and develop standardized methodology to calculate rates of PCCRC and PICRC. The team followed the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II tool. A literature review provided 401 articles to support proposed statements; evidence was rated using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) system. The statements were voted on anonymously by team members, using a modified Delphi approach. RESULTS: The team produced 21 statements that provide comprehensive guidance on PCCRCs and PICRCs. The statements present standardized definitions and terms, as well as methods for qualitative review, determination of etiology, calculation of PCCRC rates, and non-colonoscopic imaging of the colon. CONCLUSIONS: A 20-member international team has provided standardized methods for analysis of etiologies of PCCRCs and PICRCs and defines its use as a quality indicator. The team provides recommendations for clinicians, organizations, researchers, policy makers, and patients.

Performance indicators in colonoscopy after certification for independent practice: outcomes and predictors of competence.

BACKGROUND: Robust real-world performance data of newly independent colonoscopists are lacking. In the United Kingdom, provisional colonoscopy certification (PCC) marks the transition from training to newly independent practice. We aimed to assess changes in key performance indicators (KPIs) such as cecal intubation rate (CIR) in the periods pre- and post-PCC, particularly regarding rates and predictors of trainees exhibiting a drop in performance (DIP), defined as CIR <90% in the first 50 procedures post-PCC. METHODS: A prospective United Kingdom-wide observational study of Joint Advisory Group on Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Electronic Training System (JETS) e-portfolio colonoscopy entries (257,800) from trainees awarded PCC between July 2011 and 2016 was undertaken. Moving average analyses were used to study KPI trends relative to PCC. Pre-PCC trainee, trainer, and training environment factors were compared between DIP and non-DIP cohorts to identify predictors of DIP. RESULTS: Seven hundred thirty-three trainees from 180 centers were awarded PCC after a median of 265 procedures and 3.1 years. Throughout the early post-PCC period, average CIRs surpassed the national 90% standard. Despite this, not all trainees achieved this standard post-PCC, with DIP observed in 18.4%. DIP was not influenced by trainer presence and diminished after 100 additional procedures. On multivariable analysis, pre-PCC CIRs and trainer specialty were predictive of DIP. Trainees with DIP incurred higher post-PCC rates of moderate to severe discomfort despite requiring higher analgesic dosages and were more likely to require trainer assistance in failed procedures. CONCLUSIONS: The current PCC requirements are appropriate for diagnostic colonoscopy. It is possible to identify predictors of underperformance in trainees, which may be of value to training leads and could improve the patient experience.

ASGE principles of endoscopic training.

This White Paper shares guidance on the important principles of training endoscopy teachers, the focus of an American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE)/World Endoscopy Organization Program for Endoscopic Teachers and Leaders of Endoscopic Training held at the ASGE Institute for Training and Technology. Key topics included the need for institutional support and continuous skills development, the importance of consensus and consistency in content and approach to teaching, the role of conscious competence and content breakdown into discreet steps in effective teaching, defining roles of supervisors versus instructors to ensure teaching consistency across instructors, identification of learning environment factors and barriers impacting effective teaching, and individualized training that incorporates effective feedback and adapts with learner proficiency. Incorporating simulators into endoscopy teaching, applying good endoscopy teaching principles outside the endoscopy room, key principles of hands-on training, and effective use of simulators and models in achieving specific learning objectives were demonstrated with rotations through hands-on simulator stations as part of the program. A discussion of competency-based assessment was followed by live sessions in which attendees applied endoscopy teaching principles covered in the program. Conclusions highlighted the need for the following: formal training of endoscopy teachers to a level of conscious competence, incorporation of formal training structures into existing training curricula, intentional teaching preparation, feedback to trainees and instructors alike aimed at improving performance, and competency-based trainee assessment. The article is intended to help motivate individuals who play a role in training other endoscopists to develop their teaching abilities, promote discussions about endoscopy training, and engage both endoscopy trainers and trainees in a highly rewarding learning process that is in the best interest of patients.

Risk of post-colonoscopy colorectal cancer in Denmark: time trends and comparison with Sweden and the English National Health Service.

BACKGROUND: The post-colonoscopy colorectal cancer (PCCRC) rate is a key quality indicator for colonoscopy. Previously published PCCRC rates have been difficult to compare owing to differences in methodology. The primary aim of this study was to compare Danish PCCRC rates internationally and to calculate Danish PCCRC rates using the World Endoscopy Organization (WEO) consensus method for future comparison. The secondary aim was to identify factors associated with PCCRC. METHODS: National registries were used to examine the risk of PCCRC. The Danish 3-year rate of PCCRC (PCCRC-3yr) was calculated using previously published methods from England, Sweden, and the WEO. Poisson regression analysis was performed to identify factors associated with PCCRC. RESULTS: The Danish PCCRC-3yr was significantly higher than the rate in the English NHS (relative risk [RR] 1.12, 95 % confidence interval [CI] 1.05 - 1.19) and Sweden (RR 1.15, 95 %CI 1.06 - 1.24). The Danish PCCRC-3yr based on the WEO consensus method fell from 22.5 % in 2001 to 7.9 % in 2012. The multivariable Poisson regression model found PCCRC to be significantly associated with diverticulitis (RR 3.25, 95 %CI 2.88 - 3.66), ulcerative colitis (RR 3.44, 95 %CI 2.79 - 4.23), hereditary cancer (age < 60 years: RR 7.39, 95 %CI 5.77 - 9.47; age ≥ 60 years: RR 3.81, 95 %CI 2.74 - 5.31), and location in the transverse (RR 1.57, 95 %CI 1.28 - 1.94) and ascending colon (RR 1.85, 95 %CI 1.64 - 2.08). CONCLUSIONS: The PCCRC-3yr was higher in Denmark than in comparable countries. Differences in colonoscopist training, background, and certification are possible contributing factors. A review of colonoscopist training and certification in Denmark, and continuous audit and feedback of colonoscopist performance may reduce PCCRC-3yr.

Performance measures for small-bowel endoscopy: a European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Quality Improvement Initiative.

The European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) together with the United European Gastroenterology (UEG) recently developed a short list of performance measures for small-bowel endoscopy (i. e. small-bowel capsule endoscopy and device-assisted enteroscopy) with the final goal of providing endoscopy services across Europe with a tool for quality improvement. Six key performance measures for both small-bowel capsule endoscopy and for device-assisted enteroscopy were selected for inclusion, with the intention being that practice at both a service and endoscopist level should be evaluated against them. Other performance measures were considered to be less relevant, based on an assessment of their overall importance, scientific acceptability, and feasibility. Unlike lower and upper gastrointestinal endoscopy, where performance measures had already been identified, this is the first time that small-bowel endoscopy quality measures have been proposed.

The performance indicator of colonic intubation (PICI) in a FIT-based colorectal cancer screening program.

Objective: Cecal intubation rate (CIR) is known to be inversely associated with interval colorectal cancer (CRC) risk. Cecal intubation may be achieved by the use of force and sedation jeopardizing patient safety. The Performance Indicator of Colonic Intubation (PICI) is defined as the proportion of colonoscopies achieving cecal intubation with use of ≤2 mg midazolam and no-mild patient-experienced discomfort. We aimed (i) to measure the variation of PICI between colonoscopists and colonoscopy units; (ii) to assess the correlation between the individual components of PICI; and (iii) to evaluate the association between PICI and commonly used performance indicators. Materials and methods: For the period 1 July 2015 through 30 June 2017 of the prevalent round of the Danish FIT-based CRC screening program, we included colonoscopies performed at four units in the Central Denmark Region within 60 days after a positive FIT-test. The PICI variation was evaluated using rates and ranges. Correlations between individual PICI components were assessed using Pearson correlation coefficients. Polyp detection rate (PDR), Adenoma detection rate (ADR), Polyp retrieval rate (PRR) and Withdrawal time (WT) were assessed within PICI quartiles. Results: The overall PICI was 78.7% with substantial variation between colonoscopists (40.0-91.9%) and units (72.6-82.0%). CIR was significantly correlated with patient-experienced comfort (r = 0.49, n = 73, p < .0001) and we observed that colonoscopists with a PICI between 79.9% and 84.3%) had the highest ADR. Conclusion: We found a substantial variation in PICI between colonoscopists and between colonoscopy units, which may reflect potential for quality improvements.

Data quality and colonoscopy performance indicators in the prevalent round of a FIT-based colorectal cancer screening program.

Objective: From the prevalent round of the Danish FIT-based colorectal cancer (CRC) screening program, we aimed (i) to evaluate the quality of recorded data and (ii) to characterize the colonoscopies by measuring variation in performance indicators between colonoscopists and assessing the ratio between adenoma detection rate (ADR) and polyp detection rate (PDR). Materials and methods: This study included screening colonoscopies performed in Central Denmark Region within 60 days of a positive FIT-result from 1 July 2015 through 30 June 2017. The participants were the colonoscopists, performing these procedures. The quality indicators cecal intubation rate (CIR), PDR, polyp retrieval rate (PRR), ADR and withdrawal time (WT) were evaluated. ADR/PDR ratios were calculated. Results: The concordance between the recorded data and the colonoscopy reports showed Kappa values in the range of 0.47-0.97. The overall CIR was 90.6% (range 73.7%-100%), PDR: 51.9% (range 18.4%-70.2%), PRR: 94.6% (range 69.6%-100%), ADR (conventional adenomas): 50.6% (range 18.4%-70.2%), ADRx (conventional adenomas, traditional serrated adenomas and sessile serrated lesions with dysplasia): 50.9% (range 18.4%-70.2%) and the mean WT was 11.3 min (range 4.5-24.9 min). The ADR/PDR ratio was 92.8% (95% CI: 92.0%-93.6%) and the ADRx/PDR ratio was 93.2% (95% CI: 92.4%-93.9%). Conclusion: Data quality was generally high. We found considerable variation in performance indicators between colonoscopists reflecting the potential for improvement. Further, our findings revealed that the PDR might be a good proxy for ADR in the context of the prevalent round of FIT-based CRC screening programs.

A new composite measure of colonoscopy: the Performance Indicator of Colonic Intubation (PICI).

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIM: Cecal intubation rate (CIR) is an established performance indicator of colonoscopy. In some patients, cecal intubation with acceptable tolerance is only achieved with additional sedation. This study proposes a composite Performance Indicator of Colonic Intubation (PICI), which combines CIR, comfort, and sedation. METHODS : Data from 20 085 colonoscopies reported in the 2011 UK national audit were analyzed. PICI was defined as the percentage of procedures achieving cecal intubation with median dose (2 mg) of midazolam or less, and nurse-assessed comfort score of 1 - 3/5. Multivariate logistic regression analysis evaluated possible associations between PICI and patient, unit, colonoscopist, and diagnostic factors. RESULTS : PICI was achieved in 54.1 % of procedures. PICI identified factors affecting performance more frequently than single measures such as CIR and polyp detection, or CIR + comfort alone. Older age, male sex, adequate bowel preparation, and a positive fecal occult blood test as indication were associated with a higher PICI. Unit accreditation, the presence of magnetic imagers in the unit, greater annual volume, fewer years' experience, and higher training/trainer status were associated with higher PICI rates. Procedures in which PICI was achieved were associated with significantly higher polyp detection rates than when PICI was not achieved. CONCLUSIONS : PICI provides a simpler picture of performance of colonoscopic intubation than separate measures of CIR, comfort, and sedation. It is associated with more factors that are amenable to change that might improve performance and with higher likelihood of polyp detection. It is proposed that PICI becomes the key performance indicator for intubation of the colon in colonoscopy quality improvement initiatives.

Changes in scoring of Direct Observation of Procedural Skills (DOPS) forms and the impact on competence assessment.

BACKGROUND: Direct Observation of Procedural Skills (DOPS) is an established competence assessment tool in endoscopy. In July 2016, the DOPS scoring format changed from a performance-based scale to a supervision-based scale. We aimed to evaluate the impact of changes to the DOPS scale format on the distribution of scores in novice trainees and on competence assessment. METHODS: We performed a prospective, multicenter (n = 276), observational study of formative DOPS assessments in endoscopy trainees with ≤ 100 lifetime procedures. DOPS were submitted in the 6-months before July 2016 (old scale) and after (new scale) for gastroscopy (n = 2998), sigmoidoscopy (n = 1310), colonoscopy (n = 3280), and polypectomy (n = 631). Scores for old and new DOPS were aligned to a 4-point scale and compared. RESULTS: 8219 DOPS (43 % new and 57 % old) submitted for 1300 trainees were analyzed. Compared with old DOPS, the use of the new DOPS was associated with greater utilization of the lowest score (2.4 % vs. 0.9 %; P < 0.001), broader range of scores, and a reduction in competent scores (60.8 % vs. 86.9 %; P < 0.001). The reduction in competent scores was evident on subgroup analysis across all procedure types (P < 0.001) and for each quartile of endoscopy experience. The new DOPS was superior in characterizing the endoscopy learning curve by demonstrating progression of competent scores across quartiles of procedural experience. CONCLUSIONS: Endoscopy assessors applied a greater range of scores using the new DOPS scale based on degree of supervision in two cohorts of trainees matched for experience. Our study provides construct validity evidence in support of the new scale format.

Performance measures for endoscopy services: a European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Quality Improvement Initiative.

The European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) and United European Gastroenterology present a list of key performance measures for endoscopy services. We recommend that these performance measures be adopted by all endoscopy services across Europe. The measures include those related to the leadership, organization, and delivery of the service, as well as those associated with the patient journey. Each measure includes a recommendation for a minimum and target standard for endoscopy services to achieve. We recommend that all stakeholders in endoscopy take note of these ESGE endoscopy services performance measures to accelerate their adoption and implementation. Stakeholders include patients and their advocacy groups; service leaders; staff, including endoscopists; professional societies; payers; and regulators.

Performance measures for ERCP and endoscopic ultrasound: a European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Quality Improvement Initiative.

The European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy and United European Gastroenterology present a short list of key performance measures for endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) and endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). We recommend that endoscopy services across Europe adopt the following seven key and one minor performance measures for EUS and ERCP, for measurement and evaluation in daily practice at center and endoscopist level: 1: Adequate antibiotic prophylaxis before ERCP (key performance measure, at least 90 %); 2: Antibiotic prophylaxis before EUS-guided puncture of cystic lesions (key performance measure, at least 95 %); 3: Bile duct cannulation rate (key performance measure, at least 90 %); 4: Tissue sampling during EUS (key performance measure, at least 85 %); 5: Appropriate stent placement in patients with biliary obstruction below the hilum (key performance measure, at least 95 %); 6: Bile duct stone extraction (key performance measure, at least 90 %); 7: Post-ERCP pancreatitis (key performance measure, less than 10 %). 8: Adequate documentation of EUS landmarks (minor performance measure, at least 90 %).This present list of quality performance measures for ERCP and EUS recommended by ESGE should not be considered to be exhaustive: it might be extended in future to address further clinical and scientific issues.

Performance measures for lower gastrointestinal endoscopy: a European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Quality Improvement Initiative.

The European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy and United European Gastroenterology present a short list of key performance measures for lower gastrointestinal endoscopy. We recommend that endoscopy services across Europe adopt the following seven key performance measures for lower gastrointestinal endoscopy for measurement and evaluation in daily practice at a center and endoscopist level: 1 Rate of adequate bowel preparation (minimum standard 90 %); 2 Cecal intubation rate (minimum standard 90 %); 3 Adenoma detection rate (minimum standard 25 %); 4 Appropriate polypectomy technique (minimum standard 80 %); 5 Complication rate (minimum standard not set); 6 Patient experience (minimum standard not set); 7 Appropriate post-polypectomy surveillance recommendations (minimum standard not set). Other identified performance measures have been listed as less relevant based on an assessment of their importance, scientific acceptability, feasibility, usability, and comparison to competing measures.

Leadership training to improve adenoma detection rate in screening colonoscopy: a randomised trial.

OBJECTIVE: Suboptimal adenoma detection rate (ADR) at colonoscopy is associated with increased risk of interval colorectal cancer. It is uncertain how ADR might be improved. We compared the effect of leadership training versus feedback only on colonoscopy quality in a countrywide randomised trial. DESIGN: 40 colonoscopy screening centres with suboptimal performance in the Polish screening programme (centre leader ADR ≤ 25% during preintervention phase January to December 2011) were randomised to either a Train-Colonoscopy-Leaders (TCLs) programme (assessment, hands-on training, post-training feedback) or feedback only (individual quality measures). Colonoscopies performed June to December 2012 (early postintervention) and January to December 2013 (late postintervention) were used to calculate changes in quality measures. Primary outcome was change in leaders' ADR. Mixed effect models using ORs and 95% CIs were computed. RESULTS: The study included 24,582 colonoscopies performed by 38 leaders and 56,617 colonoscopies performed by 138 endoscopists at the participating centres. The absolute difference between the TCL and feedback groups in mean ADR improvement of leaders was 7.1% and 4.2% in early and late postintervention phases, respectively. The TCL group had larger improvement in ADR in early (OR 1.61; 95% CI 1.29 to 2.01; p<0.001) and late (OR 1.35; 95% CI 1.10 to 1.66; p=0.004) postintervention phases. In the late postintervention phase, the absolute difference between the TCL and feedback groups in mean ADR improvement of entire centres was 3.9% (OR 1.25; 95% CI 1.04 to 1.50; p=0.017). CONCLUSIONS: Teaching centre leaders in colonoscopy training improved important quality measures in screening colonoscopy. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT01667198.