Incidence of retained biopsy specimens after esophagogastroduodenoscopy and colonoscopy.

Background and study aims In gastrointestinal endoscopy, biopsies must transit through the accessory channel and cap, presenting an opportunity for loss of tissue. We sought to determine the incidence of specimen retention in the accessory channel or cap and identify procedure characteristics associated with specimen retention. Patients and methods After completion of standard endoscopic procedures in which biopsies were obtained, the biopsy cap and accessory channel were inspected, brushed, and irrigated for any retained biopsy specimens according to a standard protocol. For controls, the same protocol was applied to procedures in which biopsies were not obtained. Specimen bottles from the recovery protocol were sent for pathological examination regardless of whether any visible tissue was present. Results A total of 216 outpatient procedures were included: 55 esophagogastroduodenoscopies (EGDs) and 50 colonoscopies in which biopsies were obtained and 56 EGDs and 55 colonoscopies in the control group. Retained specimens were found in either the cap or channel in 50 of 105 (48%). In 20 of 105 (19%), retained specimens were found just in the cap, in six of 105 (5.7%), retained specimens were found just in the channel, while in 24 of 105 (23%), retained specimens were found in both the cap and channel. Retained specimens were more likely to be found in EGDs compared to colonoscopies (58% vs. 36%, P = 0.031). No retained specimens were found in the control group. Conclusions Retained specimens are startingly common in standard gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures and could potentially change diagnoses and management. Quality improvement measures should be instituted to monitor prevalence of retained biopsies and methods to prevent them should be developed.

Multi-ancestry genome- and phenome-wide association studies of diverticular disease in electronic health records with natural language processing enriched phenotyping algorithm.

OBJECTIVE: Diverticular disease (DD) is one of the most prevalent conditions encountered by gastroenterologists, affecting ~50% of Americans before the age of 60. Our aim was to identify genetic risk variants and clinical phenotypes associated with DD, leveraging multiple electronic health record (EHR) data sources of 91,166 multi-ancestry participants with a Natural Language Processing (NLP) technique. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We developed a NLP-enriched phenotyping algorithm that incorporated colonoscopy or abdominal imaging reports to identify patients with diverticulosis and diverticulitis from multicenter EHRs. We performed genome-wide association studies (GWAS) of DD in European, African and multi-ancestry participants, followed by phenome-wide association studies (PheWAS) of the risk variants to identify their potential comorbid/pleiotropic effects in clinical phenotypes. RESULTS: Our developed algorithm showed a significant improvement in patient classification performance for DD analysis (algorithm PPVs ≥ 0.94), with up to a 3.5 fold increase in terms of the number of identified patients than the traditional method. Ancestry-stratified analyses of diverticulosis and diverticulitis of the identified subjects replicated the well-established associations between ARHGAP15 loci with DD, showing overall intensified GWAS signals in diverticulitis patients compared to diverticulosis patients. Our PheWAS analyses identified significant associations between the DD GWAS variants and circulatory system, genitourinary, and neoplastic EHR phenotypes. DISCUSSION: As the first multi-ancestry GWAS-PheWAS study, we showcased that heterogenous EHR data can be mapped through an integrative analytical pipeline and reveal significant genotype-phenotype associations with clinical interpretation. CONCLUSION: A systematic framework to process unstructured EHR data with NLP could advance a deep and scalable phenotyping for better patient identification and facilitate etiological investigation of a disease with multilayered data.

COVID-19 Pandemic Had Minimal Impact on Colonoscopy Completion After Colorectal Cancer Red Flag Sign or Symptoms in US Veterans.

BACKGROUND: Delays in colonoscopy work-up for red flag signs or symptoms of colorectal cancer (CRC) during the COVID-19 pandemic are not well characterized. AIMS: To examine colonoscopy uptake and time to colonoscopy after red flag diagnosis, before and during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: Cohort study of adults ages 50-75 with iron deficiency anemia (IDA), hematochezia, or abnormal stool blood test receiving Veterans Health Administration (VHA) care from April 2019 to December 2020. Index date was first red flag diagnosis date, categorized into "pre" (April-December 2019) and "intra" (April-December 2020) policy implementation prioritizing diagnostic procedures, allowing for a 3-month "washout" (January-March 2020) period. Outcomes were colonoscopy completion and time to colonoscopy pre- vs. intra-COVID-19, examined using multivariable Cox models with hazard ratios (aHRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). RESULTS: There were 52,539 adults with red flag signs or symptoms (pre-COVID: 25,154; washout: 7527; intra-COVID: 19,858). Proportion completing colonoscopy was similar pre- vs. intra-COVID-19 (27.0% vs. 26.5%; p = 0.24). Median time to colonoscopy among colonoscopy completers was similar for pre- vs. intra-COVID-19 (46 vs. 42 days), but longer for individuals with IDA (60 vs. 49 days). There was no association between time period and colonoscopy completion (aHR: 0.99, 95% CI 0.95-1.03). CONCLUSIONS: Colonoscopy work-up of CRC red flag signs and symptoms was not delayed within VHA during the COVID-19 pandemic, possibly due to VHA policies supporting prioritization and completion. Further work is needed to understand how COVID-19 policies on screening and surveillance impact CRC-related outcomes, and how to optimize colonoscopy completion after a red flag diagnosis.

A comprehensive intervention to enhance inpatient colon preparation quality for colonoscopy.

BACKGROUND: Adequate colon preparation is a critical component of high-quality colonoscopy especially for inpatients undergoing colonoscopy for acute indications. Inpatient colonoscopy has a high incidence of inadequate preparations. We report implementation of a multifaceted quality improvement intervention to improve inpatient colonoscopy preparations. METHODS: Bowel preparation quality from inpatient colonoscopies performed for the 12 months prior to the comprehensive intervention were compared to colonoscopies performed for 12 months following the intervention. The intervention had multiple components including: 1) EMR-based colonoscopy preparation order set; 2) automated EMR alerts prompting nursing assessment of preparation progress; 3) standardized nursing charting processes for tracking preparation progress; and 4) standardized education for nursing staff and ordering providers on adequate colon preparation, assessment of colon preparation quality, and use of the above processes; and print and video patient education materials. RESULTS: Two hundred thirty-eight inpatient colonoscopies were performed in the preintervention assessment period and 163 colonoscopies in the postintervention period. Median preintervention Boston Bowel Preparation Score (BBPS) was 6 and 26% of patients had inadequate colon preparation. Median postintervention BBPS was 8 with 16% inadequate colon preparation (P=0.016). The postintervention group had less ASA class I patients and used a lower dose of fentanyl than the preintervention group. There were no other significant differences between the pre- and postintervention groups. CONCLUSIONS: Implementation of a comprehensive colon preparation quality intervention resulted in significantly improved inpatient colon preparation quality and decreased frequency of inadequate preparations. The intervention consisting of an EMR-based order-set, nursing alerts and charting process, and patient education materials is continually being refined.

Baseline Characteristics and Longitudinal Outcomes of Traditional Serrated Adenomas: A Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Traditional serrated adenomas (TSAs) may confer increased risk for colorectal cancer (CRC). Our objective with this study was to examine clinical characteristics and long-term outcomes associated with TSA diagnosis. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of U.S. Veterans ≥18 years of age with ≥1 TSA between 1999 and 2018. Baseline characteristics, colonoscopy findings, and diagnosis of incident and fatal CRC were abstracted. Advanced neoplasia was defined by CRC or adenoma with high-grade dysplasia, villous histology, or size ≥1 cm. Follow-up was through CRC diagnosis, death, or end of study (December 31, 2018). RESULTS: A total of 853 Veterans with a baseline TSA were identified; 74% were ≥60 years of age, 96% were men, 14% were Black, and 73% were non-Hispanic White. About 64% were current or former smokers. Over 2044 total person-years at follow-up, there were 11 incident CRC cases and 1 CRC death. Cumulative CRC incidence was 1.34% (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.67%-2.68%), and cumulative CRC death was 0.12% (95% CI, 0.00%-0.35%). Among the subset of 378 TSA patients with ≥1 surveillance colonoscopy, 65.1% had high-risk neoplasia on follow-up. CRC incidence among TSA patients was significantly higher than in a comparison cohort of patients with normal baseline colonoscopy at baseline (hazard ratio, 3.70; 95% CI, 1.63-8.41) and similar to a comparison cohort with baseline conventional advanced adenoma (hazard ratio, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.45-1.64). CONCLUSION: Individuals with TSA have substantial risk for CRC based on their cumulative CRC incidence, as well as significant risk of developing other high-risk neoplasia at follow-up surveillance colonoscopy. These data underscore importance of current recommendations for close colonoscopy surveillance after TSA diagnosis.

Adenoma Detection Rate and Clinical Characteristics Influence Advanced Neoplasia Risk After Colorectal Polypectomy.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Postpolypectomy risk stratification for subsequent metachronous advanced neoplasia (MAN) is imprecise and does not account for colonoscopist adenoma detection rate (ADR). Our aim was to assess association of ADR with MAN and create a prediction model for postpolypectomy risk stratification incorporating ADR and other factors. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of individuals with baseline polypectomy and subsequent surveillance colonoscopy from 2004 to 2016 within the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). Clinical factors, polyp findings, and baseline colonoscopist ADR were considered for the model. Model performance (sensitivity, specificity, and area under the curve) for identifying individuals with MAN was compared with 2020 U.S. Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer (USMSTF) surveillance recommendations. RESULTS: A total of 30,897 individuals were randomly assigned 2:1 into independent model training and validation sets. Increasing age, male sex, diabetes, current smoking, adenoma number, polyp location, adenoma ≥10 mm or with tubulovillous/villous features, and decreasing colonoscopist ADR were independently associated with MAN. A range of 1.48- to 1.66-fold increased risk for MAN was observed for ADR in the lowest 3 quintiles (ADR <19.7%-39.3%) vs the highest quintile (ADR >47.0%). When the final model selected based on the training set was applied to the validation set, improved sensitivity and specificity over 2020 USMSTF risk stratification were achieved (P = .001), with an area under the curve of 0.62 (95% confidence interval, 0.60-0.64). CONCLUSIONS: Colonoscopist ADR is associated with MAN. Combining clinical factors and ADR for risk stratification has potential to improve postpolypectomy risk stratification. Improving ADR is likely to improve postpolypectomy outcomes.

Index diagnoses of gastric intestinal metaplasia in the United States: patient characteristics, endoscopic findings, and clinical practice patterns at a large tertiary care center.

Background: Gastric intestinal metaplasia (GIM) is a premalignant gastric mucosal change that is often incidentally detected during esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD). Despite the established higher risk of gastric cancer associated with GIM, the incidence, prevalence, and outcomes data for GIM are limited in the United States (US), and practice patterns are highly variable. Objectives: Our primary objectives were to accurately identify incident histology-confirmed GIM cases and determine patient characteristics, endoscopy findings, Helicobacter pylori (HP) detection, and eradication treatment outcomes, as well as surveillance and follow-up recommendations. Design: We conducted a retrospective cohort study using administrative data. Methods: We first developed and validated a rule-based natural language processing tool to identify the patients with GIM on gastrointestinal pathology reports between 2011 and 2016. We then performed a manual chart review of all EGD procedures and associated pathology notes to confirm cases and obtain clinically relevant data. Results: In all, 414 patients with an index diagnosis of GIM were confirmed (prevalence = 2.5% of patients undergoing any EGD). A majority (52.4%) of patients were non-Hispanic white. The most common indication for EGD was abdominal pain (46.9%). A majority (55%) did not receive specific follow-up recommendations or were asked to see their primary care provider. HP testing was documented in 86% of patients, and detected in 94 patients (prevalence = 26.4%). Treatment was documented in 94.7% of cases, and eradication confirmed in only 34.8% of these cases. Conclusion: A large group of US patients with an index diagnosis of GIM was accurately identified. There was wide variability in clinical practice patterns including biopsy practice, HP treatment and eradication confirmation testing, and surveillance recommendations. This work demonstrates that there is a major unmet need for quality improvement efforts to standardize care for patients with GIM, a premalignant condition, and inform future prospective studies in a US population.

Clinical role of ambulatory reflux monitoring in PPI non-responders: recommendation statements.

BACKGROUND: Optimal ambulatory reflux monitoring methodology in symptomatic reflux patients continues to be debated. AIMS: To utilise published literature and expert opinion to develop recommendation statements addressing use of ambulatory reflux monitoring in clinical practice METHODS: The RAND Appropriateness Method (RAM) was utilised among 17 experts with discussion, revision and two rounds of ranking of recommendation statements. Ambulatory reflux monitoring protocol, methodology and thresholds ranked as appropriate by ≥80% of panellists met the criteria for appropriateness. RESULTS: Prolonged (96-h recommended) wireless pH monitoring off proton pump inhibitor (PPI) was identified as the appropriate diagnostic tool to assess the need for acid suppression in patients with unproven gastro-oesophageal reflux disease (GERD) and persisting typical reflux symptoms despite once-daily PPI. Acid exposure time (AET) <4.0% on all days of monitoring with negative reflux-symptom association excludes GERD and does not support ongoing PPI treatment. Conversely, AET >6.0% across ≥2 days is conclusive evidence for GERD and supports treatment for GERD, while AET >10% across ≥2 days identifies severe acid burden that supports escalation of anti-reflux treatment. In previously proven GERD, impedance-pH monitoring on PPI is helpful in defining refractory GERD and mechanisms of continued symptoms; the presence of <40 reflux events, AET <2.0% and a negative reflux-symptom association does not support escalation of anti-reflux treatment. In contrast, AET > 4.0% and positive reflux-symptom association support escalation of anti-reflux treatment, including use of invasive therapeutics. CONCLUSIONS: Statements meeting appropriateness for average clinical care have been identified when utilising reflux monitoring in patients with typical reflux symptoms and PPI non-response.

Pre-endoscopy coronavirus disease 2019 screening and severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 nucleic acid amplification testing in the Veterans Affairs healthcare system: clinical practice patterns, outcomes, and relationship to procedure volume.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has had profound impacts worldwide, including on the performance of GI endoscopy. We aimed to describe the performance and outcomes of pre-endoscopy COVID-19 symptom and exposure screening and severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) nucleic acid amplification testing (NAAT) across the national Veterans Affairs healthcare system and describe the relationship of SARS-CoV-2 NAAT use and resumption of endoscopy services. METHODS: COVID-19 screening and NAAT results from March 2020 to April 2021 were analyzed to determine use, performance characteristics of screening, and association between testing and endoscopic volume trends. RESULTS: Of 220,891 completed endoscopies identified, 115,890 (52.5%) had documented preprocedure COVID-19 symptom and exposure screenings and 154,127 (69.8%) had preprocedure NAAT results within 7 days before scheduled endoscopy. Of 131,894 total canceled endoscopies, 26,475 (20.1%) had screening data and 28,505 (21.6%) had SARS-CoV-2 NAAT results. Overall, positive NAAT results were reported in 1.8% of all individuals tested and in 1.3% of those who screened negative. Among completed and canceled endoscopies, COVID-19 screening had a 34.6% sensitivity (95% confidence interval [CI], 32.4%-36.8%) and 96.4% specificity (95% CI, 96.2%-96.5%) when compared with NAAT. COVID-19 screening had a positive predictive value of 15.0% (95% CI, 14.0%-16.1%) and a negative predictive value of 98.7% (95% CI, 98.7%-98.8%). There was a very weak correlation between monthly testing and monthly endoscopy volume by site (Spearman rank correlation coefficient = .09). CONCLUSIONS: These findings have important implications for decisions about preprocedure testing, especially given breakthrough infections among vaccinated individuals during the SARS-CoV-2 delta and omicron variant surge.

Individualized feedback on colonoscopy skills improves group colonoscopy quality in providers with lower adenoma detection rates.

Background and study aims Colonoscopy inspection quality (CIQ) assesses skills (fold examination, cleaning, and luminal distension) during inspection for polyps and correlates with adenoma detection rate (ADR) and serrated detection rate (SDR). We aimed to determine whether providing individualized CIQ feedback with instructional videos improves quality metrics performance. Methods We prospectively studied 16 colonoscopists who already received semiannual benchmarked reports of quality metrics (ADR, SDR, and withdrawal time [WT]). We randomly selected seven colonoscopies/colonoscopist for evaluation. Six gastroenterologists graded CIQ using an established scale. We created instructional videos demonstrating optimal and poor inspection techniques. Colonoscopists received the instructional videos and benchmarked CIQ performance. We compared ADR, SDR, and WT in the 12 months preceding ("baseline") and following CIQ feedback. Colonoscopists were stratified by baseline ADR into lower (≤ 34 %) and higher-performing (> 34 %) groups. Results Baseline ADR was 38.5 % (range 26.8 %-53.8 %) and SDR was 11.2 % (2.8 %-24.3 %). The proportion of colonoscopies performed by lower-performing colonoscopists was unchanged from baseline to post-CIQ feedback. All colonoscopists reviewed their CIQ report cards. Post-feedback, ADR (40.1 % vs 38.5 %, P  = 0.1) and SDR (12.2 % vs. 11.2 %, P  = 0.1) did not significantly improve; WT significantly increased (11.4 vs 12.4 min, P  < 0.01). Among the eight lower-performing colonoscopists, group ADR (31.1 % vs 34.3 %, P  = 0.02) and SDR (7.2 % vs 9.1 %, P  = 0.02) significantly increased post-feedback. In higher-performing colonoscopists, ADR and SDR did not change. Conclusions CIQ feedback modestly improves ADR and SDR among colonoscopists with lower baseline ADR but has no effect on higher-performing colonoscopists. Individualized feedback on colonoscopy skills could be used to improve polyp detection by lower-performing colonoscopists.

Higher Quality Colonoscopy: Worth the Wait?

ABSTRACT: To meet the high demand for colonoscopy, the Veterans Health Administration often refers veterans to community practices. Petros et al. compared colonoscopy quality at a Veterans Affairs Medical Center with that of local community practices. Although community providers performed more timely colonoscopy than the Veterans Affairs medical center (mean 25 days earlier), colonoscopy quality was significantly lower for other important quality metrics, including adenoma detection, advanced adenoma detection, adenomas per colonoscopy, and appropriate surveillance recommendations. This study highlights the need for continued efforts to assure high-quality colonoscopy in all settings.

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

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

Safety of endoscopist-directed nurse-administered balanced propofol sedation in patients with severe systemic disease (ASA class III).

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: The safety of endoscopist-directed nurse-administered propofol sedation (EDNAPS) has been demonstrated in low-risk patients (American Society of Anesthesiologists [ASA] class I and II). There are limited data regarding the safety of EDNAPS for endoscopic procedures in ASA class III patients. The purpose of this study was to determine the safety of EDNAPS for routine outpatient endoscopy in this population. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed all outpatient EGDs and colonoscopies performed with EDNAPS at the University of Utah from January 2015 to November 2018. Exclusion criteria were inpatient procedures, combined procedures, ASA IV or higher, use of continuous or bilevel positive airway pressure at the start of the procedure, or procedures performed by a nongastroenterologist. Major adverse events were defined as intubation or death. Minor adverse events were defined as hypoxia, hypotension, bradycardia, or need for airway interventions. Patients were stratified by procedure type and ASA I/II status and were compared with patients with ASA III status and matched according to age, gender, and the involvement of a fellow in a 3 to 1 fashion. RESULTS: The final sample size was 18,910 colonoscopy procedures (17,205 patients) and 9178 EGD procedures (6827 patients). In both colonoscopy and EGD procedures, there were no major adverse events such as intubation, need for resuscitation, or death. The rates of any airway intervention, jaw thrust, oral nasal airway, or use of positive pressure ventilation were low in both procedure types and not different between ASA I/II and ASA III patients. CONCLUSION: EDNAPS is safe in both ASA I/II and ASA class III patients undergoing routine outpatient endoscopy.

Simplifying Measurement of Adenoma Detection Rates for Colonoscopy.

BACKGROUND: Adenoma detection rate (ADR) is the colonoscopy quality metric with the strongest association to interval or "missed" cancer. Accurate measurement of ADR can be laborious and costly. AIMS: Our aim was to determine if administrative procedure codes for colonoscopy and text searches of pathology results for adenoma mentions could estimate ADR. METHODS: We identified US Veterans with a colonoscopy using Current Procedure Terminology (CPT) codes between January 2013 and December 2016 at ten Veterans Affairs sites. We applied simple text searches using Microsoft SQL Server full-text searches to query all pathology notes for "adenoma(s)" or "adenomatous" text mentions to calculate ADRs. To validate our identification of colonoscopy procedures, endoscopists of record, and adenoma detection from the electronic health record, we manually reviewed a random sample of 2000 procedure and pathology notes from the 10 sites. RESULTS: Structured data fields were accurate in identification of colonoscopies being performed (PPV = 0.99; 95% CI 0.99-1.00) and identifying the endoscopist of record (PPV of 0.95; 95% CI 0.94-0.96) for ADR measurement. Simple text searches of pathology notes for adenoma mentions had excellent performance statistics as follows: sensitivity 0.99 (95% CI 0.98-1.00), specificity 0.93 (95% CI 0.92-0.95), NPV 0.99 (95% CI 0.98-1.00), and PPV 0.93 (0.91-0.94) for measurement of ADR. There was no clinically significant difference in the estimates of overall ADR vs. screening ADR (p > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Measuring ADR using administrative codes and text searches from pathology results is an efficient method to broadly survey colonoscopy quality.

Impact of Health Insurance, Poverty, and Comorbidities on Colorectal Cancer Screening: Insights from the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey.

BACKGROUND: Despite national campaigns and other efforts to improve colorectal cancer (CRC) screening, participation rates remain below targets set by expert panels. We hypothesized that availability and practice patterns of healthcare providers may contribute to this gap. METHOD: Using data of the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey for the years between 2000 and 2016, we extracted demographic, socioeconomic, and health-related data as well as reported experiences about barriers to care, correlating results with answers about recent participation in colorectal cancer screening. As CRC screening guidelines recommend initiation of testing at age 50, we focused on adults 50 years or older. RESULTS: We included responses of 163,564 participants for the period studied. There was a significant increase in CRC screening rates over time. Comorbidity burden, poverty, race, and ethnicity independently predicted participation in screening. Lack of insurance coverage and cost of care played an important role as reported barrier. Convenient access to care, represented by availability of appointments beyond typical business hours, and frequency of provider interactions, correlated with higher rates of screening. CONCLUSION: Our data show a positive effect of educational efforts and healthcare reform with coverage of screening. Easy and more frequent access to individual providers predicted a higher likelihood of completed screening tests. This finding could translate into more widespread implementation of screening programs, as the increasingly common virtual care delivery offers a new and convenient option to patients.

Esophageal Manometry Competency Program Improves Gastroenterology Fellow Performance in Motility Interpretation.

INTRODUCTION: Competency-based medical education (CBME) for interpretation of esophageal manometry is lacking; therefore, motility experts and instructional designers developed the esophageal manometry competency (EMC) program: a personalized, adaptive learning program for interpretation of esophageal manometry. The aim of this study was to implement EMC among Gastroenterology (GI) trainees and assess the impact of EMC on competency in manometry interpretation. METHODS: GI fellows across 14 fellowship programs were invited to complete EMC from February 2018 to October 2018. EMC includes an introductory video, baseline assessment of manometry interpretation, individualized learning pathways, and final assessment of manometry interpretation. The primary outcome was competency for interpretation in 7 individual skill sets. RESULTS: Forty-four GI trainees completed EMC. Participants completed 30 cases, each including 7 skill sets. At baseline, 4 (9%) participants achieved competency for all 7 skills compared with 24 (55%) at final assessment (P < 0.001). Competency in individual skills increased from a median of 4 skills at baseline to 7 at final assessment (P < 0.001). The greatest increase in skill competency was for diagnosis (Baseline: 11% vs Final: 68%; P < 0.001). Accuracy improved for distinguishing between 5 diagnostic groups and was highest for the Outflow obstructive motility disorder (Baseline: 49% vs Final: 76%; P < 0.001) and Normal motor function (50% vs 80%; P < 0.001). DISCUSSION: This prospective multicenter implementation study highlights that an adaptive web-based training platform is an effective tool to promote CBME. EMC completion was associated with significant improvement in identifying clinically relevant diagnoses, providing a model for integrating CBME into subspecialized areas of training.