Closing the Gap: A Critical Examination of Adherence, Inconsistency, and Improvements in Colonoscopy Reporting Practices.

INTRODUCTION: Comprehensive and standardized colonoscopy reports are crucial in colorectal cancer prevention, monitoring, and research. This study investigates adherence to national and international guidelines by analyzing reporting practices among 21 endoscopists in 7 German centers, with a focus on polyp reporting. METHODS: We identified and assessed German, European, American, and World Health Organization-provided statements to identify key elements in colonoscopy reporting. Board-certified gastroenterologists rated the relevance of each element and estimated their reporting frequency. Adherence to the identified report elements was evaluated for 874 polyps from 351 colonoscopy reports ranging from March 2021 to March 2022. RESULTS: We identified numerous recommendations for colonoscopy reporting. We categorized the reasoning behind those recommendations into clinical relevance, justification, and quality control and research. Although all elements were considered relevant by the surveyed gastroenterologists, discrepancies were observed in the evaluated reports. Particularly diminutive polyps or attributes which are rarely abnormal (e.g., surface integrity) respectively rarely performed (e.g., injection) were sparsely documented. Furthermore, the white light morphology of polyps was inconsistently documented using either the Paris classification or free text. In summary, the analysis of 874 reported polyps revealed heterogeneous adherence to the recommendations, with reporting frequencies ranging from 3% to 89%. CONCLUSION: The inhomogeneous report practices may result from implicit reporting practices and recommendations with varying clinical relevance. Future recommendations should clearly differentiate between clinical relevance and research and quality control or explanatory purposes. Additionally, the role of computer-assisted documentation should be further evaluated to increase report frequencies of non-pathological findings and diminutive polyps.

Healthcare Provider Perspectives on Lowering Colorectal Cancer Screening Initiation Age to 45 Years: Results From a Survey of Clinicians in the U.S.

We conducted a survey of primary care clinicians and gastroenterologists (n = 938) between 11/06/19-12/06/19 to assess knowledge and attitudes regarding colorectal cancer screening. We assessed clinicians' attitudes toward lowering the colorectal cancer screening initiation age to 45 years, a topic of current debate. We also evaluated provider and practice characteristics associated with agreement. Only 38.1% of primary care clinicians endorsed colorectal cancer screening initiation at age 45 years, compared to 75.5% of gastroenterologists (p < .0001). Gastroenterologists were over 5 times more likely than primary care clinicians to endorse lowering the screening initiation age (OR = 5.30, 3.54-7.93). Other factors found to be independently associated with agreement with colorectal cancer screening initiation at age 45 years included seeing more than 25 patients per day (vs. fewer) and suburban (vs. urban) location. Results emphasize the need for collaboration between primary care clinicians and gastroenterologists to ensure that patients receive consistent messaging and evidence-based care.

Hepatocellular carcinoma from the view of gastroenterologist/hepatologist.

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is one of the major complications of chronic liver disease, mostly of liver cirrhosis. Liver diseases from different causes differ in the risks of HCC development. Different mechanisms of carcinogenesis are involved in HCC development in different liver diseases as well. Generally, two main pathways are distinguished: the cause of liver disease itself (e.g. viral infections, accumulation of heavy metals etc.) and chronic liver inflammation and fibrogenesis, including mechanisms of oxidative stress. Rare cases of HCC in liver without underlying cirrhosis are likely the consequences of the mechanisms directly linked with particular etiological factor (e.g. protein X in chronic hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection). The key approach which can lead to significantly better results of any treatment used in HCC cases is HCC screening and surveillance. The appropriate method of HCC surveillance is abdominal ultrasonography in 6-month intervals. There is still one question to be solved: the correct definition of target population which should undergo this method of surveillance. Currently, the target population in the developed world is defined as all patients with liver cirrhosis. Unfortunately, the only method of primary prevention of HCC is available: universal HBV vaccination. Antiviral treatment of hepatitis B or C is considered as a method of secondary prevention. Adjuvant therapy of HCC after its primary therapy (antiviral therapy after HCC resection etc.) and other measures able to reduce HCC recurrence risk are usually mentioned as tertiary prevention approach. The BCLC staging system is the most common system used in Europe for the classification of HCC at the dia-gnosis. This classification combines the stage of HCC itself with other parameters, such as liver disease severity (Child - Pugh classification), portal hypertension etc. BCLC is a system which guides the physicians to optimal treatment options in every HCC stage. The only potentially curable approaches are surgical resection or liver transplantation. These options may be used in 1/3 of all HCC patients. Unfortunately, the vast majority of HCC patients can be treated only by palliative treatment options with transarterial chemoembolisation being the most common one.

Chapter of Gastroenterologists professional guidance on risk mitigation for gastrointestinal endoscopy during COVID-19 pandemic in Singapore.

In this paper, we aimed to provide professional guidance to practising gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopists for the safe conduct of GI endoscopy procedures during the current coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic and future outbreaks of similar severe respiratory tract infections in Singapore. It draws on the lessons learnt during the severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) epidemic and available published data concerning the COVID-19 pandemic. It addresses measures before, during and after endoscopy that must be considered for both non-infected and infected patients, and provides recommendations for practical implementation.

The Perceived Ability of Gastroenterologists, Hepatologists and Surgeons Can Bias Medical Decision Making.

Medical errors are a troubling issue and physicians should be careful to scrutinize their own decisions, remaining open to the possibility that they may be wrong. Even so, doctors may still be overconfident. A survey was here conducted to test how medical experience and self-confidence can affect physicians working in the specific clinical area. Potential participants were contacted through personalized emails and invited to contribute to the survey. The "risk-intelligence" test consists of 50 statements about general knowledge in which participants were asked to indicate how likely they thought that each statement was true or false. The risk-intelligence quotient (RQ), a measure of self-confidence, varies between 0 and 100. The higher the RQ score, the better the confidence in personal knowledge. To allow for a representation of 1000 physicians, the sample size was calculated as 278 respondents. A total of 1334 individual emails were sent to reach 278 respondents. A control group of 198 medical students were also invited, of them, 54 responded to the survey. The mean RQ (SD)of physicians was 61.1 (11.4) and that of students was 52.6 (9.9). Assuming age as indicator of knowledge, it was observed that physicians ≤34 years had a mean RQ of 59.1 (10.1); those of 35-42 years had 61.0 (11.0); in those of 43-51 years increased to 62.9 (12.2); reached a plateau of 63.0 (11.5) between 52-59 years and decreased to 59.6 (12.1) in respondents ≥60 years (r2:0.992). Doctors overestimate smaller probabilities and under-estimate higher probabilities. Specialists in gastroenterology and hepato-biliary diseases suffer from some degree of self-confidence bias, potentially leading to medical errors. Approaches aimed at ameliorating the self-judgment should be promoted more widely in medical education.

Stricter national standards are required for credentialing of endoscopic-retrograde-cholangiopancreatography in the United States.

Endoscopic-retrograde-cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) is now a vital modality with primarily therapeutic and occasionally solely diagnostic utility for numerous biliary/pancreatic disorders. It has a significantly steeper learning curve than that for other standard gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopies, such as esophagogastroduodenoscopy or colonoscopy, due to greater technical difficulty and higher risk of complications. Yet, GI fellows have limited exposure to ERCP during standard-three-year-GI-fellowships because ERCP is much less frequently performed than esophagogastroduodenoscopy/colonoscopy. This led to adding an optional year of training in therapeutic endoscopy. Yet many graduates from standard three-year-fellowships without advanced training intensely pursue independent/unsupervised ERCP privileges despite inadequate numbers of performed ERCPs and unacceptably low rates of successful selective cannulation of desired (biliary or pancreatic) duct. Hospital credentialing committees have traditionally performed ERCP credentialing, but this practice has led to widespread flouting of recommended guidelines (e.g., planned privileging of applicant with 20% successful cannulation rate, or after performing only 7 ERCPs); and intense politicking of committee members by applicants, their practice groups, and potential competitors. Consequently, some gastroenterologists upon completing standard fellowships train and learn ERCP "on the job" during independent/unsupervised practice, which can result in bad outcomes: high rates of failed bile duct cannulation. This severe clinical problem is indicated by publication of ≥ 12 ERCP competency studies/guidelines during last 5 years. However, lack of mandatory, quantitative, ERCP credentialing criteria has permitted neglect of recommended guidelines. This work comprehensively reviews literature on ERCP credentialing; reviews rationales for proposed guidelines; reports problems with current system; and proposes novel criteria for competency. This work advocates for mandatory, national, written, minimum, quantitative, standards, including cognitive skills (possibly assessed by a nationwide examination), and technical skills, assessed by number performed (≥ 200-250 ERCPs), types of ERCPs, success rate (approximately ≥ 90% cannulation of desired duct), and letters of recommendation by program director/ERCP mentor. Mandatory criteria should ideally not be monitored by a hospital committee subjected to intense politicking by applicants, their employers, and sometimes even competitors, but an independent national entity, like the National Board of Medical Examiners/American Board of Internal Medicine.

Association of Adenoma and Proximal Sessile Serrated Polyp Detection Rates With Endoscopist Characteristics.

Importance: Research demonstrates adenoma detection rate (ADR) and proximal sessile serrated polyp detection rate (pSSPDR) are associated with endoscopist characteristics including sex, specialty, and years in practice. However, many studies have not adjusted for other risk factors associated with colonic neoplasia. Objective: To assess the association between endoscopist characteristics and polyp detection after adjusting the factors included in previous studies as well as other factors. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study was conducted in the Cleveland Clinic health system with data from individuals undergoing screening colonoscopies between January 2015 and June 2017. The study analyzed data using methods from previous studies that have demonstrated significant associations between endoscopist characteristics and ADR or pSSPDR. Multilevel mixed-effects logistic regression was performed to examine 7 endoscopist characteristics associated with ADRs and pSSPDRs after controlling for patient demographic, clinical, and colonoscopy-associated factors. Exposures: Seven characteristics of endoscopists performing colonoscopy. Main Outcomes and Measures: The ADR and pSSPDR, with a hypothesis created after data collection began. Results: A total of 16 089 colonoscopies were performed in 16 089 patients by 56 clinicians. Of these, 8339 patients were male (51.8%), and the median (range) age of the cohort was 59 (52-66) years. Analyzing the data by the methods used in 4 previous studies yielded an association between endoscopist and polyp detection; surgeons (OR, 0.49 [95% CI, 0.28-0.83]) and nongastroenterologists (OR, 0.50 [95% CI 0.29-0.85]) had reduced odds of pSSPDR, which was similar to results in previous studies. In a multilevel mixed-effects logistic regression analysis, ADR was not significantly associated with any endoscopist characteristic, and pSSPDR was only associated with years in practice (odds ratio, 0.86 [95% CI, 0.83-0.89] per increment of 10 years; P < .001) and number of annual colonoscopies performed (odds ratio, 1.05 [95% CI, 1.01-1.09] per 50 colonoscopies/year; P = .02). Conclusions and Relevance: The differences in ADRs that were associated with 7 of 7 endoscopist characteristics and differences in pSSPDRs that were associated with 5 of 7 endoscopist characteristics in previous studies may have been associated with residual confounding, because they were not replicated in this analysis. Therefore, these characteristics should not influence the choice of endoscopist for colorectal cancer screening. However, clinicians further from their training and those with lower colonoscopy volumes have lower adjusted pSSPDRs and may need additional training to help increase pSSPDRs.

Survey Study on the Practice Patterns of the Evaluation and Management of Incidental Pancreatic Cysts.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Various gastrointestinal societies have released guidelines on the evaluation of asymptomatic pancreatic cysts (PCs). These guidelines differ on several aspects, which create a conundrum for clinicians. The aim of this study was to evaluate preferences and practice patterns in the management of incidental PCs in light of these societal recommendations. METHODS: An electronic survey distributed to members of the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE). Main outcomes included practice setting (academic vs. community), preferences for evaluation, management, and surveillance strategies for PCs. RESULTS: A total of 172 subjects completed the study (52% academic-based endoscopists). Eighty-six (50%) and 138 (80%) of the participants responded that they would recommend EUS surveillance of incidental PCs measuring less than 2 cm and 3 cm, respectively. Nearly half of the endosonographers (42.5% community and 44% academic; p = 1.0) would routinely perform FNA on PCs without any high-risk features. More academic-based endoscopists (57% academic vs. 32% community; p = 0.001) would continue incidental PC surveillance indefinitely. CONCLUSIONS: There is significant variability in the approach of incidental PCs among clinicians, with practice patterns often diverging from the various GI societal guideline recommendations. Most survey respondents would routinely recommend EUS-FNA and indefinite surveillance for incidental PCs without high-risk features. The indiscriminate use of EUS-FNA and indefinite surveillance of all incidental PCs is not cost-effective, exposes the patient to unnecessary testing, and can further perpetuate diagnostic uncertainty. Well-designed studies are needed to improve our diagnostic and risk stratification accuracy in order to formulate a consensus on the management of these incidental PCs.

Five common errors to avoid in clinical practice: the Italian Association of Hospital Gastroenterologists and Endoscopists (AIGO) Choosing Wisely Campaign.

Modern medicine provides almost infinite diagnostic and therapeutic possibilities if compared to the past. As a result, patients undergo a multiplication of tests and therapies, which in turn may trigger further tests, often based on physicians' attitudes or beliefs, which are not always evidence-based. The Italian Association of Hospital Gastroenterologists and Endoscopists (AIGO) adhered to the Choosing Wisely Campaign to promote an informed, evidence-based approach to gastroenterological problems. The aim of this article is to report the five recommendations of the AIGO Choosing Wisely Campaign, and the process used to develop them. The AIGO members' suggestions regarding inappropriate practices/interventions were collected. One hundred and twenty-one items were identified. Among these, five items were selected and five recommendations were developed. The five recommendations developed were: (1) Do not request a fecal occult blood test outside the colorectal cancer screening programme; (2) Do not repeat surveillance colonoscopy for polyps, after a quality colonoscopy, before the interval suggested by the gastroenterologist on the colonoscopy report, or based on the polyp histology report; (3) Do not repeat esophagogastroduodenoscopy in patients with reflux symptoms, with or without hiatal hernia, in the absence of different symptoms or alarm symptoms; (4) Do not repeat abdominal ultrasound in asymptomatic patients with small hepatic haemangiomas (diameter < 3 cm) once the diagnosis has been established conclusively; (5) Do not routinely prescribe proton pump inhibitors within the context of steroid use or long-term in patients with functional dyspepsia. AIGO adhered to the Choosing Wisely Campaign and developed five recommendations. Further studies are needed to assess the impact of these recommendations in clinical practice with regards to clinical outcome and cost-effectiveness.

Poor Knowledge of Colorectal Cancer Screening and Surveillance Guidelines in a National Cohort of Digestive Disease Specialists.

BACKGROUND: Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening is cost-effective and prevents death from CRC if used appropriately. Physicians do not recommend CRC screening according to guidelines. Physician-related factors associated with CRC screening knowledge are unknown. AIMS: We tested the accuracy of CRC screening knowledge in a nationwide cohort of practicing and trainee physicians and assessed respondent's interest in a mobile app to improve appropriate CRC screening use. METHODS: An electronic survey was emailed to practicing gastroenterology professionals and medical and surgical trainees. We assessed accuracy of responses compared to CRC screening and surveillance guidelines. We assessed factors associated with higher accuracy of knowledge, frequency of workplace smartphone use, and interest in a smartphone app to aid CRC screening and surveillance recommendations. RESULTS: In total, 1432 responses were received. Hundred percent accuracy was noted in 22% of respondents for screening and 37% for surveillance. Factors associated with higher accuracy of screening guidelines included more recent training completion; academic practice; performing 21-100 colonoscopies per month (vs. < 21 or > 100). Higher accuracy of surveillance guidelines was associated with more recent training completion; academic practice; being a third-year fellow. In total, 53% use smartphones at least "often" in patient care. In total, 87% would use a CRC screening and surveillance smartphone app. CONCLUSIONS: Accuracy in applying CRC screening guidelines by gastroenterologists is poor. Smartphone use for patient care is prevalent. Our data show a high interest in a CRC screening/surveillance mobile app. Mobile tools appear an opportunity for rapid access and an increased adherence to CRC screening guidelines.

Endoscopist Specialty Predicts the Likelihood of Recommending Cessation of Colorectal Cancer Screening in Older Adults.

OBJECTIVES: Although the 2008 US Preventive Services Task Force guidelines recommend against routine colorectal cancer (CRC) screening for adults aged 76-85, it is unclear what endoscopists recommend in practice. Our goal was to examine current practice around cessation of CRC screening in older adults. METHODS: We included normal screening colonoscopy exams in adults ≥ 50 years old within the New Hampshire Colonoscopy Registry between 2009 and 2014. The primary outcome was endoscopists' recommendation against further screening. The main exposure variables included patient age, family history of CRC, and endoscopist characteristics. Descriptive statistics and univariate and multivariable logistic regression models were used. RESULTS: Of 13,364 normal screening colonoscopy exams, 2914 (21.8%) were in adults aged ≥ 65 and were performed by 74 endoscopists. Nearly 100% of adults aged 65-69 undergoing screening colonoscopy were given the recommendation to return for screening colonoscopy in the future. Only 15% of average-risk patients aged 70-74 were told to stop receiving screening, while 85% were told to return at a future interval, most frequently in 10 years when they would be 80-84. In the multivariable model, advancing patient age and the absence of family history of CRC were significantly associated with a recommendation to stop colonoscopy. Gastroenterologists were more likely to recommend stopping colonoscopy in accordance with guidelines than other non-gastroenterology endoscopists (adjusted OR (95% CI) 2.3 (1.6-3.4)). CONCLUSIONS: In a large statewide colonoscopy registry, the majority of older adults are told to return for future screening colonoscopy. Having a family history of CRC or a non-gastroenterology endoscopist increases the likelihood of being told to return for screening at advanced ages.

High concordance between trained nurses and gastroenterologists in evaluating recordings of small bowel video capsule endoscopy (VCE).

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: . The video capsule endoscopy (VCE) is an accurate and validated tool to investigate the entire small bowel mucosa, but VCE recordings interpretation by the gastroenterologist is time-consuming. A pre-reading of VCE recordings by an expert nurse could be accurate and cost saving. We assessed the concordance between nurses and gastroenterologists in detecting lesions on VCE examinations. METHODS: This was a prospective study enrolling consecutive patients who had undergone VCE in clinical practice. Two trained nurses and two expert gastroenterologists participated in the study. At VCE pre-reading the nurses selected any abnormalities, saved them as "thumbnails" and classified the detected lesions as a vascular abnormality, ulcerative lesion, polyp, tumor mass, and unclassified lesion. Then, the gastroenterologist evaluated and interpreted the selected lesions and, successively, reviewed the entire video for potential missed lesions. The time for VCE evaluation was recorded. RESULTS: A total of 95 VCE procedures performed on consecutive patients (M/F: 47/48; mean age: 63 +/- 12 years, range: 27-86 years) were evaluated. Overall, the nurses detected at least one lesion in 54 (56.8%) patients. There was total agreement between nurses and gastroenterologists, no missing lesions being discovered at a second look of the entire VCE recording by the physician. The pre-reading procedure by nurse allowed a time reduction of medical evaluation from 49 (33-69) to 10 (8-16) minutes (difference: -79.6%). CONCLUSIONS: Our data suggest that trained nurses can accurately identify and select relevant lesions in thumbnails that subsequently were faster reviewed by the gastroenterologist for a final diagnosis. This could significantly reduce the cost of VCE procedure.

The gastroenterologist's guide to management of the post-liver transplant patient.

The management of the post-liver transplant patient is complex and involves a large interdisciplinary team. After referral to a transplant center, evaluation and listing, and eventual transplantation, the patient is cared for closely by the transplant center. Once deemed ready for discharge, the patient returns to the primary care provider for ongoing management of the various issues that increase in incidence post transplant such as osteoporosis, cardiovascular, and renal diseases, as well as metabolic syndrome. The role of the gastroenterologist is not well defined, but certainly, he or she may be called upon for the initial evaluation and ongoing management of gastrointestinal as well as hepatobiliary issues. This includes but is not limited to the investigation of abnormal liver tests, non-specific gastrointestinal complaints such as nausea, vomiting, or diarrhea, biliary complications, and even recurrent hepatic disease. Having familiarity with post-transplant immunosuppressive agents, drug interactions, and potential infectious and malignancy-related complications of transplant is essential, as the primary gastroenterologist may be expected in some situations to field the initial work-up, if patient access to the transplant center is limited. The aim of this review is to summarize the gastroenterologist's role in the management of the post-liver transplant patient.

Management of Esophageal Food Impaction Varies Among Gastroenterologists and Affects Identification of Eosinophilic Esophagitis.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Esophageal food impaction (EFI) is a gastrointestinal emergency requiring immediate evaluation in the emergency room (ER) and an esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) for disimpaction. EFI is also a distinct presenting feature of eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE). This study aimed at understanding the management of EFI among gastroenterologists (GIs) and estimated its impact on identification of EoE in USA. METHODS: GIs associated with three major gastroenterology societies based in USA were invited to participate in a web-based survey. Information on the resources available and utilized, and the clinical decision-making process related to management of EFI cases was collected and analyzed. RESULTS: Of 428 responses, 49% were from pediatric GIs, 86% practiced in the USA, and 78% practiced in an academic setting. Compared to the pediatric GIs, adult GIs were more likely to perform EGD in the emergency room [OR 87.96 (25.43-304.16)] and advance the food bolus into stomach [5.58 (3.08-10.12)]. Only 34% of respondents obtained esophageal biopsies during EGD, and pediatric GIs were more likely to obtain esophageal biopsies [3.49 (1.12-10.84)] compared to adult GIs. In USA, by our conservative estimates, 10,494 patients presenting to ER with EFI and at risk of EoE are likely being missed each year. CONCLUSIONS: EFI management varies substantially among GIs associated with three major gastroenterology societies in USA. Based on their practice patterns, the GIs in USA are likely to miss numerous EoE patients presenting to ER with EFI. Our findings highlight the need for developing and disseminating evidence-based EFI management practice guidelines.

Knowledge Gaps in the Management of Postoperative Crohn's Disease: A US National Survey.

BACKGROUND: Postoperative recurrence (POR) of Crohn's disease (CD) is common. Guidelines on POR management have recently been issued, but clinical practice may vary. AIMS: To examine the current clinical practice of POR management in the USA METHODS: A web-based survey was sent to all members of the American Gastroenterological Association and the American College of Gastroenterology. The survey consisted of multiple-choice questions with clinical scenarios to assess how participants manage POR. RESULTS: A total of 189 responses were received from practices in 34 states. 44% of participants were from academic settings. The median number of CD patients seen each month was 20-30 patients per participant. The majority of participants considered smoking, prior intestinal surgery, penetrating disease, perianal fistula, early disease onset, and long extent of disease as high-risk factors for POR. To diagnose and grade endoscopic recurrence, 57% of participants used an endoscopic scoring system; 86% defined clinical recurrence using a combination of symptoms and endoscopic findings; and 79% of participants routinely performed colonoscopy after surgery. In high-risk patients, 65% offered medical prophylaxis-most often biologics and/or immunomodulators-immediately after surgery, while 34% offered medical prophylaxis regardless of the patient's risk of POR. 64% of participants never stopped medical prophylaxis once initiated. CONCLUSIONS: Most gastroenterologists routinely perform colonoscopy to guide POR management. The majority of these providers continue medical prophylaxis indefinitely regardless of subsequent endoscopic findings. Further research is needed to determine the risks and benefits of continuing versus deescalating therapy in patients with potentially surgically induced remission.

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.

[ERCP procedures as a source of radiation risk to a single gastroenterologist]. / Zabieg ECPW jako zródlo narazenia radiacyjnego dla gastroenterologa.

BACKGROUND: One of the numerous sub-areas of interventional radiology is the use of X-rays in gastroenterology. X-ray fluoroscopy is applied in therapeutic procedures, including endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) that is frequently performed. The ERCP procedure is aimed at imaging the pancreatic duct and biliary tracts. MATERIAL AND METHODS: In this paper radiation risk to the gastrenterologist performing ERCP procedures was investigated. The procedures were performed by a single gastroenterologist in the ERCP Laboratory, University Clinical Hospital Military Memorial Medical Academy - Central Veterans' Hospital in Lódz, Poland. The study comprised 2 series of measurements, one taken during the procedures with continuous fluoroscopy mode, the other during procedures with fluoroscopy in pulsed mode at a frequency of 3 pulses/s. Exposure parameters, anatomical data of patient and dose equivalents for the eyes, skin of the hand and the effective dose for whole body of the gastroenterologist were recorded during each procedure. RESULTS: The collected data cover 70 ERCP procedures - 40 procedures were controlled by continuous fluoroscopy and 30 by pulsed fluoroscopy. The results reveal that pulsed fluoroscopy makes it possible to reduce doses received by the gastroeneterologist from 45% to 60% compared to continuous fluoroscopy. CONCLUSIONS: Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography procedures can cause radiation risk to the gastroenterologist performing them. The use of continuous fluoroscopy can result in achieving an equivalent dose to eye lens nearly 20 mSv per year, i.e., the decreased annual limit recommended by the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP). Med Pr 2017;68(6):735-741.

ASA Classification Pre-Endoscopic Procedures: A Retrospective Analysis on the Accuracy of Gastroenterologists.

OBJECTIVES: Before an endoscopic procedure, an evaluation to assess the risk of sedation is performed by the gastroenterologist. To risk stratify based on medical problems, the American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) classification scores are used routinely in the preprocedure evaluation. The objective of our study was to evaluate among physicians the ASA score accuracy pre-endoscopic procedures. METHODS: At a single tertiary-care center an institutional review board-approved retrospective study was performed. Upper endoscopies performed from May 2012 through August 2013 were reviewed; data were collected and recorded. Statistical analysis was performed using descriptive statistics and linear weighted kappa analysis for agreement (≤0.20 is poor agreement, 0.21-0.40 is fair, 0.41-0.60 is moderate, 0.61-0.80 is good, and 0.81-1.00 is very good). RESULTS: The mean ASA scores by the gastroenterologist compared with the anesthesiologist were 2.28 ± 0.56 and 2.78 ± 0.60, respectively, with only fair agreement (weighted kappa index 0.223, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.113-0.333; 48% agreement). The mean ASA scores for gastroenterologists compared with other gastroenterologists were 2.26 ± 0.5 and 2.26 ± 0.44, respectively, with poor agreement (weighted kappa index 0.200, 95% CI 0.108-0.389; 68% agreement). Agreement on ASA scores was only moderate between the gastroenterologist and himself or herself (weighted kappa index 0.464, 95% CI 0.183-0.745; 75% agreement). CONCLUSIONS: Gastroenterologists performing preprocedure assessments of ASA scores have fair agreement with anesthesiologists, poor agreement with other gastroenterologists, and only moderate agreement with themselves. Given this level of inaccuracy, it appears that the ASA score pre-endoscopy is of limited significance.