Relative Efficacies of Interventions to Improve the Quality of Screening-Related Colonoscopy: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Significant variability exists in colonoscopy quality indicators, including adenoma detection rate (ADR). We synthesized evidence from randomized trials in a network meta-analysis on interventions to improve colonoscopy quality. METHODS: We included trials from database inceptions to September 25, 2023, of patients undergoing screening-related colonoscopy and presented efficacies of interventions within domains (periprocedural parameters, endoscopist-directed interventions, intraprocedural techniques, endoscopic technologies, distal attachment devices, and additive substances) compared to standard colonoscopy. The primary outcome was ADR. We used a Bayesian random-effects model using Markov-chain Monte Carlo simulation, with 10,000 burn-ins and 100,000 iterations. We calculated odds ratios with 95% credible intervals and present surface under the cumulative ranking (SUCRA) curves. RESULTS: We included 124 trials evaluating 37 interventions for the primary outcome. Nine interventions resulted in statistically significant improvements in ADR compared to standard colonoscopy (9-minute withdrawal time, dual observation, water exchange, i-SCAN [Pentax Ltd], linked color imaging, computer-aided detection, Endocuff [Olympus Corp], Endocuff Vision [Olympus Corp], and oral methylene blue). Dual observation (SUCRA, 0.84) and water exchange (SUCRA, 0.78) ranked highest among intraprocedural techniques; i-SCAN (SUCRA, 0.95), linked color imaging (SUCRA, 0.85), and computer-aided detection (SUCRA, 0.78) among endoscopic technologies; WingCap (A&A Medical Supply LLC) (SUCRA, 0.87) and Endocuff (SUCRA, 0.85) among distal attachment devices and oral methylene blue (SUCRA, 0.94) among additive substances. No interventions improved detection of advanced adenomas, and only narrow-band imaging improved detection of serrated lesions (odds ratio, 2.94; 95% credible interval, 1.46-6.25). CONCLUSIONS: Several interventions are effective in improving adenoma detection and overall colonoscopy quality, many of which are cost-free. These results can inform endoscopists, unit managers, and endoscopy societies on relative efficacies.

Ergonomic wellness for the trainee in gastrointestinal endoscopy.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Endoscopy-related injuries (ERIs) are prevalent in gastrointestinal endoscopy. The aim of this review is to address the growing concern of ERIs by evaluating the ergonomic risk factors and the efficacy of interventions and educational strategies aimed at mitigating these risks, including novel approaches. RECENT FINDINGS: ERIs are highly prevalent, exacerbated by factors such as repetitive strain, nonneutral postures, suboptimal equipment design, and the procedural learning curve. Female sex and smaller hand sizes have been identified as specific risk factors. Recent guidelines underscore the importance of ergonomic education and the integration of ergonomic principles into the foundational training of gastroenterology fellows. Advances in equipment design focus on adaptability to different hand sizes and ergonomic positions. Furthermore, the incorporation of microbreaks and macrobreaks, along with neutral monitor and bed positioning, has shown promise in reducing the incidence of ERIs. Wearable sensors may be helpful in monitoring and promoting ergonomic practices among trainees. SUMMARY: Ergonomic wellness is paramount for gastroenterology trainees to prevent ERIs and ensure a sustainable career. Effective strategies include ergonomic education integrated into curricula, equipment design improvements, and procedural adaptations such as scheduled breaks and optimal positioning. Sensor-based and camera-based systems may allow for education and feedback to be provided regarding ergonomics to trainees in the future.

Comparison of Endoscopic Mucosal Resection versus Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection for Barrett's Neoplasia and Esophageal Adenocarcinoma: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) and endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) are both accepted resection strategies for Barrett's esophagus-related neoplasia and esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC). However, a lack of consensus exists regarding which technique offers superior outcomes. This study aims to systematically review the evidence comparing EMR versus ESD in treating Barrett's neoplasia and EAC. METHODS: We searched three databases (Embase, MEDLINE, Cochrane Central) until October 2023. We included studies comparing the efficacy of EMR and ESD for Barrett's neoplasia and EAC. Primary outcomes include en bloc, R0, and curative resection, complete remission of dysplasia (CRD), and local recurrence. Secondary outcomes encompass adverse events. RESULTS: Our search identified 905 records. Eleven studies were included in the final analyses. Data showed significantly higher en bloc resection rates with ESD [odds ratio(OR)=27.36 (95% confidence intervals(CI):7.12-105.21), p<0.01, 6 studies]. R0 resection rates were significantly higher with ESD [OR=5.73 (95%CI:2.32-14.16), p<0.01, 7 studies]. Curative resection rates tended to be higher with ESD [OR=3.49 (95%CI:0.86-14.14), p=0.080, 4 studies]. There was no significant difference in CRD rates [OR=0.92 (95%CI:0.37-2.26),p=0.86, 3 studies]. Local recurrence rates tended to be lower with ESD [OR=0.35 (95%CI: 0.11-1.04), p=0.058, 10 studies]. As for adverse events, there was no significant difference in bleeding, perforation, and postoperative stricture rates. CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review and meta-analysis demonstrates that ESD achieves higher en bloc, R0 and curative resection rates, with a tendency toward lower recurrence rates. These results suggest that ESD may be a more effective option for managing Barrett's neoplasia and EAC.

Post-ERCP cholecystitis: Incidence, characteristics, and outcomes from a prospective multicenter biliary endoscopy registry.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: The incidence, risk factors, and outcomes of post-ERCP cholecystitis are poorly described. We aimed to describe cases of post-ERCP cholecystitis from a prospective multicenter registry with protocolized 30-day follow-up. METHODS: Patient- and procedure-related data from 7 centers were obtained. The primary outcome was post-ERCP cholecystitis, defined according to a Delphi-based criteria and causal attribution system. Risk factors and outcomes were described for all cases. RESULTS: Seventeen cases of post-ERCP cholecystitis were identified among 4428 patients with gallbladders undergoing ERCP between 2018 and 2023 (incidence, 0.38%; 95% confidence interval, 0.20-0.57). In ERCPs with covered metal stenting, 7 of 467 resulted in cholecystitis (incidence, 1.50%; 95% confidence interval, 0.40-2.60). Patients had symptoms at a median of 5 days (interquartile range, 5) after ERCP. Management strategies included cholecystectomy, percutaneous cholecystostomy, and endoscopic stent removal/exchange. CONCLUSIONS: Estimates of post-ERCP cholecystitis incidence can inform discussions around procedural risk.

Establishment of Standards for the Referral of Large Non-Pedunculated Colorectal Polyps: An International Expert Consensus Using a Modified Delphi Process.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Resection of colorectal polyps has been shown to decrease the incidence and mortality of colorectal cancer. Large non-pedunculated colorectal polyps are often referred to expert centres for endoscopic resection, which requires relevant information to be conveyed to the therapeutic endoscopist to allow for triage and planning of resection technique. The primary objective of our study was to establish minimum expected standards for the referral of LNPCP for potential ER. METHODS: A Delphi methodology was employed to establish consensus on minimum expected standards for the referral of large colorectal polyps among a panel of international endoscopy experts. The expert panel was recruited through purposive sampling, and three rounds of surveys were conducted to achieve consensus, with quantitative and qualitative data analysed for each round. RESULTS: A total of 24 international experts from diverse continents participated in the Delphi study, resulting in consensus on 19 statements related to the referral of large colorectal polyps. The identified factors, including patient demographics, relevant medications, lesion factors, photodocumentation and the presence of a tattoo, were deemed important for conveying the necessary information to therapeutic endoscopists. The mean scores for the statements ranged from 7.04 to 9.29 out of 10, with high percentages of experts considering most statements as a very high priority. Subgroup analysis by continent revealed some variations in consensus rates among experts from different regions. CONCLUSION: The identified consensus statements can aid in improving the triage and planning of resection techniques for large colorectal polyps, ultimately contributing to the reduction of colorectal cancer incidence and mortality.

American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy guideline on the role of ergonomics for prevention of endoscopy-related injury: summary and recommendations.

This clinical practice guideline from the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy provides an evidence-based approach to strategies to prevent endoscopy-related injury (ERI) in GI endoscopists. It is accompanied by the article subtitled "Methodology and Review of Evidence," which provides a detailed account of the methodology used for the evidence review. This document was developed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation framework. The guideline estimates the rates, sites, and predictors of ERI. Additionally, it addresses the role of ergonomics training, microbreaks and macrobreaks, monitor and table positions, antifatigue mats, and use of ancillary devices in decreasing the risk of ERI. We recommend formal ergonomics education and neutral posture during the performance of endoscopy, achieved through adjustable monitor and optimal procedure table position, to reduce the risk of ERI. We suggest taking microbreaks and scheduled macrobreaks and using antifatigue mats during procedures to prevent ERI. We suggest the use of ancillary devices in those with risk factors predisposing them to ERI.

Accuracy of self-assessment in gastrointestinal endoscopy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Assessment is necessary to ensure both attainment and maintenance of competency in gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy, and this can be accomplished through self-assessment. We conducted a systematic review with meta-analysis to evaluate the accuracy of self-assessment among GI endoscopists. METHODS: This was an individual participant data meta-analysis of studies that investigated self-assessment of endoscopic competency. We performed a systematic search of the following databases: Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid EMBASE, Wiley Cochrane CENTRAL, and ProQuest Education Resources Information Center. We included studies if they were primary investigations of self-assessment accuracy in GI endoscopy that used statistical analyses to determine accuracy. We conducted a meta-analysis of studies using a limits of agreement (LoA) approach to meta-analysis of Bland-Altman studies. RESULTS: After removing duplicate entries, we screened 7138 records. After full-text review, we included 16 studies for qualitative analysis and three for meta-analysis. In the meta-analysis, we found that the LoA were wide (-41.0 % to 34.0 %) and beyond the clinically acceptable difference. Subgroup analyses found that both novice and intermediate endoscopists had wide LoA (-45.0 % to 35.1 % and -54.7 % to 46.5 %, respectively) and expert endoscopists had narrow LoA (-14.2 % to 21.4 %). CONCLUSIONS: GI endoscopists are inaccurate in self-assessment of their endoscopic competency. Subgroup analyses demonstrated that novice and intermediate endoscopists were inaccurate, while expert endoscopists have accurate self-assessment. While we advise against the sole use of self-assessment among novice and intermediate endoscopists, expert endoscopists may wish to integrate it into their practice.

Validity evidence for observational ERCP competency assessment tools: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND : Assessment of competence in endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) is critical for supporting learning and documenting attainment of skill. Validity evidence supporting ERCP observational assessment tools has not been systematically evaluated. METHODS : We conducted a systematic search using electronic databases and hand-searching from inception until August 2021 for studies evaluating observational assessment tools of ERCP performance. We used a unified validity framework to characterize validity evidence from five sources: content, response process, internal structure, relations to other variables, and consequences. Each domain was assigned a score of 0-3 (maximum score 15). We assessed educational utility and methodological quality using the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education framework and the Medical Education Research Quality Instrument, respectively. RESULTS : From 2769 records, we included 17 studies evaluating 7 assessment tools. Five tools were studied for clinical ERCP, one for simulated ERCP, and one for simulated and clinical ERCP. Validity evidence scores ranged from 2 to 12. The Bethesda ERCP Skills Assessment Tool (BESAT), ERCP Direct Observation of Procedural Skills Tool (ERCP DOPS), and The Endoscopic Ultrasound (EUS) and ERCP Skills Assessment Tool (TEESAT) had the strongest validity evidence, with scores of 10, 12, and 11, respectively. Regarding educational utility, most tools were easy to use and interpret, and required minimal additional resources. Overall methodological quality (maximum score 13.5) was strong, with scores ranging from 10 to 12.5. CONCLUSIONS : The BESAT, ERCP DOPS, and TEESAT had strong validity evidence compared with other assessments. Integrating tools into training may help drive learners' development and support competency decision making.

The Toronto Upper Gastrointestinal Cleaning Score: a prospective validation study.

BACKGROUND : Assessment of mucosal visualization during esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) can be improved with a standardized scoring system. To address this need, we created the Toronto Upper Gastrointestinal Cleaning Score (TUGCS). METHODS : We developed the TUGCS using Delphi methodology, whereby an international group of endoscopy experts iteratively rated their agreement with proposed TUGCS items and anchors on a 5-point Likert scale. After each Delphi round, we analyzed responses and refined the TUGCS using an 80 % agreement threshold for consensus. We used the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) to assess inter-rater and test-retest reliability. We assessed internal consistency with Cronbach's alpha and item-total and inter-item correlations with Pearson's correlation coefficient. We compared TUGCS ratings with an independent endoscopist's global rating of mucosal visualization using Spearman's ρ. RESULTS : We achieved consensus with 14 invited participants after three Delphi rounds. Inter-rater reliability was high at 0.79 (95 %CI 0.64-0.88). Test-retest reliability was excellent at 0.83 (95 %CI 0.77-0.87). Cronbach's α was 0.81, item-total correlation range was 0.52-0.70, and inter-item correlation range was 0.38-0.74. There was a positive correlation between TUGCS ratings and a global rating of visualization (r = 0.41, P = 0.002). TUGCS ratings for EGDs with global ratings of excellent were significantly higher than those for EGDs with global ratings of fair (P = 0.01). CONCLUSION : The TUGCS had strong evidence of validity in the clinical setting. The international group of assessors, broad variety of EGD indications, and minimal assessor training improves the potential for dissemination.

Predictors of ICU admission associated with gastrointestinal endoscopy in medical inpatients: A retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: Gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopic procedures are commonly performed in medical inpatients. Limited prior research has examined factors associated with intensive care unit (ICU) admission after GI endoscopy in medical inpatients. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study was conducted using routinely-collected clinical and administrative data from all general medicine hospitalizations at five academic hospitals in Toronto, Canada between 2010 and 2020. We describe ICU admission and death within 48 h of GI endoscopy in medical inpatients. We examined adjusted associations of patient and procedural factors with ICU admission or death using multivariable logistic regression. RESULTS: Among 18 290 medical inpatients who underwent endoscopy, 900 (4.9%) required ICU admission or died within 48 h of endoscopy. Following risk adjustment, ICU admission or death were associated with the following procedural factors: endoscopy on the day of hospital admission (aOR 3.16 [2.38-4.21]) or 1 day after admission (aOR 1.92 [1.51-2.44]) and esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) procedures; and the following patient factors: Charlson comorbidity index of two (aOR 1.38 [1.05-1.81]) or three or greater (aOR 1.84 [1.47-2.29]), older age, male sex, lower hemoglobin prior to endoscopy, increased creatinine prior to endoscopy, an admitting diagnosis of liver disease and certain medications (antiplatelet agents and corticosteroids). CONCLUSIONS: ICU admission or death after endoscopy was associated with procedural factors such as EGD and timing of endoscopy, and patient factors indicative of acute illness and greater comorbidity. These findings can contribute to improved triage and monitoring for patients requiring inpatient endoscopy.

Outcomes for upper gastrointestinal bleeding during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic in the Toronto area.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: Changes to endoscopy service availability during the COVID-19 pandemic may have affected management of upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB). The aim of this study was to describe the impact of the pandemic on UGIB outcomes in the Toronto area in Canada. METHODS: We described all adults admitted to general medicine wards or intensive care units at six hospitals in Toronto and Mississauga, Canada, with UGIB during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic (March 1 to June 30, 2020) and compared them with a historical cohort (March 1 to June 30, 2018 and 2019). We compared clinical outcomes (in-hospital mortality, length of stay, 30-day readmission, intensive care utilization, receipt of endoscopy, persistent bleeding, receipt of second endoscopy, and need for angiographic or surgical intervention) using multivariable regression models, controlling for demographics, comorbidities, and severity of clinical presentation. RESULTS: There were 82.5 and 215.5 admissions per month for UGIB during the COVID-19 and control periods, respectively. There were no baseline differences between groups for demographic characteristics, comorbidities, or severity of bleeding. Patients in the COVID-19 group did not have significantly different unadjusted (3.9% vs 4.2%, P = 0.983) or adjusted mortality (adjusted odds ratio [OR] = 0.64, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.25-1.48, P = 0.322). Patients in COVID-19 group were less likely to receive endoscopy for UGIB in the unadjusted (61.8% vs 71.0%, P = 0.003) and adjusted (adjusted OR = 0.64, 95% CI = 0.49-0.84, P < 0.01) models. There were no differences between groups for other secondary outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: While patients admitted for UGIB during the first wave of the pandemic were less likely to receive endoscopy, this had no impact on mortality or any secondary outcomes.

Colonoscopy competence assessment tools: a systematic review of validity evidence.

BACKGROUND: Assessment tools are essential for endoscopy training, being required to support feedback provision, optimize learner capabilities, and document competence. We aimed to evaluate the strength of validity evidence that supports the available colonoscopy direct observation assessment tools using the unified framework of validity. METHODS: We systematically searched five databases for studies investigating colonoscopy direct observation assessment tools from inception until 8 April 2020. We extracted data outlining validity evidence (content, response process, internal structure, relations to other variables, and consequences) from the five sources and graded the degree of evidence, with a maximum score of 15. We assessed educational utility using an Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education framework and methodological quality using the Medical Education Research Quality Instrument (MERSQI). RESULTS: From 10 841 records, we identified 27 studies representing 13 assessment tools (10 adult, 2 pediatric, 1 both). All tools assessed technical skills, while 10 each assessed cognitive and integrative skills. Validity evidence scores ranged from 1-15. The Assessment of Competency in Endoscopy (ACE) tool, the Direct Observation of Procedural Skills (DOPS) tool, and the Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Competency Assessment Tool (GiECAT) had the strongest validity evidence, with scores of 13, 15, and 14, respectively. Most tools were easy to use and interpret, and required minimal resources. MERSQI scores ranged from 9.5-11.5 (maximum score 14.5). CONCLUSIONS: The ACE, DOPS, and GiECAT have strong validity evidence compared with other assessments. Future studies should identify barriers to widespread implementation and report on the use of these tools in credentialing examinations.

Undisclosed payments by pharmaceutical and medical device manufacturers to authors of endoscopy guidelines in the United States.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Payments from pharmaceutical and medical device manufacturers to authors of clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) may influence practice recommendations. It is therefore important to evaluate the completeness of financial conflict of interest (FCOI) declarations among CPG authors. METHODS: We performed a cross-sectional analysis of industry payments to authors of endoscopy guidelines published by 5 GI societies between 2014 and 2017. For each author we identified payments using the disclosure section of CPGs and the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Open Payments (CMS-OP) database. We calculated the prevalence, monetary value, and type of declared and undeclared payments among authors. Payments were assessed for the calendar year of and before publication. RESULTS: Thirty-seven CPGs were included in the analysis comprising 569 author entries (91 unique individuals; 66.43% men, 92.6% physicians, 66.4% academically affiliated). Four hundred fifty-one episodes (79%) involved FCOIs, 451 (79%) had undisclosed FCOIs in the CMS-OP, and 445 (77%) had FCOIs relevant to a CPG recommendation. The median undisclosed payment value was $4807.26 (interquartile range, $334.84-$20,579.75). Male authors (odds ratio, 2.23; 95% confidence interval, 1.47-3.39) and academically affiliated authors (odds ratio, 8.87; 95% confidence interval, 5.57-14.13) were significantly more likely to have undeclared payments (P < .001). No CPGs met all National Academy of Medicine criteria. CONCLUSIONS: Recognizing concerns about the accuracy of the CMS-OP, there are substantial discrepancies between industry-reported payments and author self-disclosure. Additionally, there is a high prevalence of undisclosed payments by pharmaceutical and medical device manufacturers to these authors. Given the potential impact of these discrepancies and undisclosed payments on CPGs, more accurate reporting and alternative strategies for managing FCOI are needed.

Impact of a simulation-based ergonomics training curriculum on work-related musculoskeletal injury risk in colonoscopy.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Endoscopists are at risk of developing musculoskeletal injuries (MSIs), and few receive training on ergonomics. The aim of this study was to determine the impact of a simulation-based ergonomics training curriculum (ETC) on work-related MSI risk during clinical colonoscopy. METHODS: Novice endoscopists underwent a simulation-based ETC and were compared with an historical control group who received simulation-based training without ergonomics training. The ETC included a didactic lecture and video on ergonomics in colonoscopy, feedback from supervisors on ergonomics, and an ergonomics checklist to augment feedback and promote self-reflection. Participants were assessed using the rapid entire body assessment (REBA) and rapid upper limb assessment (RULA). The primary outcome was participants' REBA scores during 2 clinical colonoscopies 4 to 6 weeks after training. RESULTS: In clinical colonoscopy, the ETC group had superior REBA scores (clinical procedure 1: median score, 6 vs 11; P < .001; clinical procedure 2: median score, 6 vs 10; P < .001). In a simulated colonoscopy, the ETC group did not have significantly different REBA or RULA scores between baseline, immediately after training, and 4 to 6 weeks after (REBA: median scores of 5, 5, and 5, respectively; P > .05; RULA: median scores of 6, 6, and 6, respectively; P > .05). The control group had worsening REBA and RULA scores during the study timeline (REBA: median scores of 5 at baseline, 9 immediately after training, and 9 at 4-6 weeks after training; P < .001; RULA: median scores of 6, 7, and 7, respectively; P = .04) during simulated procedures. CONCLUSIONS: A simulation-based ETC is associated with reduced risk of MSI during endoscopy. Although the REBA score was improved, the intervention group was still within the medium-risk range.

Associations between endoscopist feedback and improvements in colonoscopy quality indicators: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Colonoscopy quality indicators such as adenoma detection rate (ADR) are surrogates for the effectiveness of screening-related colonoscopy. It is unclear whether endoscopist feedback on these indicators improves performance. We performed a meta-analysis to determine whether associations exist between endoscopist feedback and colonoscopy performance. METHODS: We conducted a search through May 2019 for studies reporting on endoscopist feedback and associations with ADR or other colonoscopy quality indicators. Pooled rate ratios (RRs) and weighted mean differences were calculated using DerSimonian and Laird random effects models. Subgroup, sensitivity, and meta-regression analyses were performed to assess for potential methodological or clinical factors associated with outcomes. RESULTS: From 1326 initial studies, 12 studies were included in the meta-analysis for ADR, representing 33,184 colonoscopies. Endoscopist feedback was associated with an improvement in ADR (RR, 1.21; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.09-1.34). Low performers derived a greater benefit from feedback (RR, 1.62; 95% CI, 1.18-2.23) compared with moderate performers (RR, 1.19; 95% CI, 1.11-1.29), whereas high performers did not derive a significant benefit (RR, 1.06; 95% CI, 0.99-1.13). Feedback was not associated with increases in withdrawal time (weighted mean difference, +0.43 minutes; 95% CI, -0.50 to +1.36 minutes) or improvements in cecal intubation rate (RR, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.99-1.01). CONCLUSION: Endoscopist feedback is associated with modest improvements in ADR. The implementation of routine endoscopist audit and feedback should be considered alongside other quality improvement interventions in institutions dedicated to the provision of high-quality screening-related colonoscopy.

Impact of COVID-19 on endoscopy trainees: an international survey.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Although coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has affected endoscopy services globally, the impact on trainees has not been evaluated. We aimed to assess the impact of COVID-19 on procedural volumes and on the emotional well-being of endoscopy trainees worldwide. METHODS: An international survey was disseminated over a 3-week period in April 2020. The primary outcome was the percentage reduction in monthly procedure volume before and during COVID-19. Secondary outcomes included potential variation of COVID-19 impact between different continents and rates and predictors of anxiety and burnout among trainees. RESULTS: Across 770 trainees from 63 countries, 93.8% reported a reduction in endoscopy case volume. The median percentage reduction in total procedures was 99% (interquartile range, 85%-100%), which varied internationally (P < .001) and was greatest for colonoscopy procedures. Restrictions in case volume and trainee activity were common barriers. A total of 71.9% were concerned that the COVID-19 pandemic could prolonged training. Anxiety was reported in 52.4% of respondents and burnout in 18.8%. Anxiety was independently associated with female gender (odds ratio [OR], 2.15; P < .001), adequacy of personal protective equipment (OR, 1.75; P = .005), lack of institutional support for emotional health (OR, 1.67; P = .008), and concerns regarding prolongation of training (OR, 1.60; P = .013). Modifying existing national guidelines to support adequate endoscopy training during the pandemic was supported by 68.9%. CONCLUSIONS: The COVID-19 pandemic has led to restrictions in endoscopic volumes and endoscopy training, with high rates of anxiety and burnout among endoscopy trainees worldwide. Targeted measures by training programs to address these key issues are warranted to improve trainee well-being and support trainee education.

Health-related social media use and preferences of adolescent and young adult cancer patients for virtual programming.

PURPOSE: Adolescents and young adults (AYA) with cancer are increasingly using the internet and social media (SM) for cancer-related information. AYA face specific challenges and thus require tailored resources that meet their needs. We describe the internet and SM preferences of AYA related to their cancer information seeking behaviors and their preferences for a future resource compared to middle-aged adults (MAA). METHODS: Cancer patients completed a cross-sectional survey related to their internet and SM usage, cancer information, and preferences for future resources. Chi-square tests were used to compare AYA and MAA. RESULTS: The mean (±SD) age in the AYA group was 30±6.1 years (n = 129); in MAA 55±6.7 years (n = 157). In general, AYA preferred internet sites over SM platforms for cancer-related information and prefer a website platform over a SM platform for a new resource. Few AYA were aware of hospital-based AYA-specific resources. MAA were less likely to use SM compared with AYA (13% vs 4%, p = 0.01); however, websites and SM platforms that were used were similar between the 2 groups. Participants endorsed having already researched certain topics - yet, these were also those desired in a new resource. Compared to MAA, AYA sought more information on diet/nutrition, physical activity, exercise/fitness, fertility, sexual health, and body image (all p values < 0.05). CONCLUSION: AYA and MAA use similar resources on the internet and SM, but AYA sought information related to specific needs. Development of future resources should focus on an internet-based platform rather than a SM platform, coupled with promoting awareness of the resource.

Non-technical skills curriculum incorporating simulation-based training improves performance in colonoscopy among novice endoscopists: Randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Non-technical skills (NTS), involving cognitive, social and interpersonal skills that complement technical skills, are important for the completion of safe and efficient procedures. We investigated the impact of a simulation-based curriculum with dedicated NTS training on novice endoscopists' performance of clinical colonoscopies. METHODS: A single-blinded randomized controlled trial was conducted at a single center. Novice endoscopists were randomized to a control curriculum or a NTS curriculum. The control curriculum involved a didactic session, virtual reality (VR) simulator colonoscopy training, and integrated scenario practice using a VR simulator, a standardized patient, and endoscopy nurse. Feedback and training were provided by experienced endoscopists. The NTS curriculum group received similar training that included a small-group session on NTS, feedback targeting NTS, and access to a self-reflective NTS checklist. The primary outcome was performance during two clinical colonoscopies, assessed using the Joint Advisory Group Direct Observation of Procedural Skills (JAG DOPS) tool. RESULTS: Thirty-nine participants completed the study. The NTS group (n = 21) had superior clinical performance during their first (P < 0.001) and second clinical colonoscopies (P < .0.001), compared to the control group (n = 18). The NTS group performed significantly better on the VR simulator (P < 0.05) and in the integrated scenario (P < 0.05). CONCLUSION: Our findings demonstrate that dedicated NTS training led to improved performance of clinical colonoscopies among novices.