Nationally Automated Colonoscopy Performance Feedback Increases Polyp Detection: the NED APRIQOT Randomised Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Post-colonoscopy colorectal cancer incidence and mortality rates are higher for endoscopists with low polyp detection rates. Using the UK's National Endoscopy Database (NED), which automatically captures real-time data, we assessed if providing feedback of case-mix-adjusted Mean Number of Polyps (aMNP), as a key performance indicator, improved endoscopists' performance. Feedback was delivered via a theory-informed evidence-based audit and feedback intervention. METHODS: This multicentre, prospective, NED Automated Performance Reports to Improve Quality Outcomes Trial (NED-APRIQOT) randomised NHS endoscopy centres to intervention or control. Intervention-arm endoscopists were emailed tailored monthly reports automatically generated within NED, informed by qualitative interviews and behaviour change theory. The primary outcome was endoscopists' aMNP during the 9-month intervention. RESULTS: From November 2020-July 2021, 541 endoscopists across 36 centres (19 intervention; 17 control) performed 54,770 procedures during the intervention, and 15,960 procedures during the 3-months post-intervention period. Comparing intervention-arm to control-arm endoscopists during the intervention period: aMNP was non-significantly higher (7%, 95% confidence interval (CI) -1% to 14%; p=0·08). Unadjusted MNP (10%, 95%CI 1-20%) and polyp detection rate (PDR) (10%, 95%CI 4-16%) were significantly higher. Differences were not maintained in the post-intervention period. In the intervention-arm, endoscopists accessing NED-APRIQOT webpages had higher aMNP than those who did not (118 vs 102 aMNP, p=0.03). CONCLUSION: Although our automated feedback intervention did not increase aMNP significantly in the intervention period; MNP and PDR did significantly improve. Engaged endoscopists benefited most and improvements were not maintained post-intervention; future work should address engagement in feedback and consider the effectiveness of continuous feedback. www.isrctn.org ISRCTN11126923.

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

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

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

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

Impact of a national basic skills in colonoscopy course on trainee performance: An interrupted time series analysis.

BACKGROUND: The Joint Advisory Group on Gastrointestinal Endoscopy basic skills in colonoscopy (BSC) course was introduced in 2009 to improve colonoscopy training within the United Kingdom, but its impact on trainee performance is unknown. AIM: To assess whether attendance of the BSC could improve colonoscopy performance. METHODS: Trainees awarded colonoscopy certification between 2011-2016 were stratified into 3 groups according to pre-course procedure count (< 70, 70-140 and > 140). Study outcomes, comprising the unassisted caecal intubation rate (CIR) and the performance indicator of colonic intubation (PICI), were studied over the 50 procedures pre and post- course. Interrupted time series analyses were performed to detect step-change changes attributable to the course. RESULTS: A total of 369 trainees with pre-course procedure counts of < 70 (n = 118), 70-140 (n = 121) and > 140 (n = 130) were included. Over the 50 pre-course procedures, significant linear improvements in CIR were found, with average increases of 4.2, 3.6 and 1.7 percentage points (pp) per 10 procedures performed in the < 70, 70-140 and > 140 groups respectively (all P < 0.001). The < 70 procedures group saw a significant step-change improvement in CIR, increasing from 46% in the last pre-course procedure, to 51% in the first procedure post-course (P = 0.005). The CIR step-change was not significant in the 70-140 (68% to 71%; P = 0.239) or > 140 (86% to 87%; P = 0.354) groups. For PICI, significant step-change improvements were seen in all three groups, with average increases of 5.6 pp (P < 0.001), 5.4 pp (P = 0.003) and 3.9 pp (P = 0.014) respectively. CONCLUSION: Attendance of the BSC was associated with a significant step-change improvement in PICI, regardless of prior procedural experience. However, CIR data suggest that the optimal timing of course attendance appears to be at earlier stages of training (< 70 procedures).

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

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

The isolated caecal patch lesion: a clinical, endoscopic and histopathological study.

OBJECTIVE: To describe and investigate the potential causes of the isolated caecal patch lesion, a previously undescribed endoscopic phenomenon of a lesion fulfilling endoscopic and histopathological criteria for chronic inflammatory bowel disease but without evidence of similar inflammatory pathology elsewhere at colonoscopy. METHODS: Cases were collected prospectively by one specialist gastrointestinal pathologist over a 10-year period. Full endoscopic and histopathological analysis was undertaken and follow-up sought to understand the likely cause(s) of the lesions. RESULTS: Six cases are described. Two had very close links with ulcerative colitis, one predating the onset of classical distal disease and the other occurring after previous demonstration of classical distal ulcerative colitis. Two occurred in younger patients and we postulate that these lesions may predict the subsequent onset of chronic inflammatory bowel disease. Finally two can be reasonably attributed to the effects of non-steroidal inflammatory agent therapy. CONCLUSIONS: Caecal patch lesions can be demonstrated in isolation. Despite the strong association of caecal patch lesions with ulcerative colitis, solitary lesions may well have disparate causes but nevertheless possess a close relationship with chronic inflammatory bowel disease.

Variation in post-colonoscopy colorectal cancer across colonoscopy providers in English National Health Service: population based cohort study.

OBJECTIVES: To quantify post-colonoscopy colorectal cancer (PCCRC) rates in England by using recent World Endoscopy Organisation guidelines, compare incidence among colonoscopy providers, and explore associated factors that could benefit from quality improvement initiatives. DESIGN: Population based cohort study. SETTING: National Health Service in England between 2005 and 2013. POPULATION: All people undergoing colonoscopy and subsequently diagnosed as having colorectal cancer up to three years after their investigation (PCCRC-3yr). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: National trends in incidence of PCCRC (within 6-36 months of colonoscopy), univariable and multivariable analyses to explore factors associated with occurrence, and funnel plots to measure variation among providers. RESULTS: The overall unadjusted PCCRC-3yr rate was 7.4% (9317/126 152), which decreased from 9.0% in 2005 to 6.5% in 2013 (P<0.01). Rates were lower for colonoscopies performed under the NHS bowel cancer screening programme (593/16 640, 3.6%), while they were higher for those conducted by non-NHS providers (187/2009, 9.3%). Rates were higher in women, in older age groups, and in people with inflammatory bowel disease or diverticular disease, in those with higher comorbidity scores, and in people with previous cancers. Substantial variation in rates among colonoscopy providers remained after adjustment for case mix. CONCLUSIONS: Wide variation exists in PCCRC-3yr rates across NHS colonoscopy providers in England. The lowest incidence was seen in colonoscopies performed under the NHS bowel cancer screening programme. Quality improvement initiatives are needed to address this variation in rates and prevent colorectal cancer by enabling earlier diagnosis, removing premalignant polyps, and therefore improving outcomes.

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

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

Establishing population-based surveillance of diagnostic timeliness using linked cancer registry and administrative data for patients with colorectal and lung cancer.

BACKGROUND: Diagnostic timeliness in cancer patients is important for clinical outcomes and patient satisfaction but, to-date, continuous monitoring of diagnostic intervals in nationwide incident cohorts has been impossible in England. METHODS: We developed a new methodology for measuring the secondary care diagnostic interval (SCDI - first relevant secondary care contact to diagnosis) using linked cancer registration and healthcare utilisation data. Using this method, we subsequently examined diagnostic timeliness in colorectal and lung cancer patients (2014-15) by socio-demographic characteristics, diagnostic route and stage at diagnosis. RESULTS: The approach assigned SCDIs to 94.4% of all incident colorectal cancer cases [median length (90th centile) of 25 (104) days] and 95.3% of lung cancer cases [36 (144) days]. Advanced stage patients had shorter intervals (median, colorectal: stage 1 vs 4 - 34 vs 19 days; lung stage 1&2 vs 3B&4 - 70 vs 27 days). Routinely referred patients had the longest (colorectal: 61, lung: 69 days) and emergency presenters the shortest intervals (colorectal: 3, lung: 14 days). Comorbidities and additional diagnostic tests were also associated with longer intervals. CONCLUSION: This new method can enable repeatable nationwide measurement of cancer diagnostic timeliness in England and identifies actionable variation to inform early diagnosis interventions and target future research.

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

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

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

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

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

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

ASGE principles of endoscopic training.

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

Certification of UK gastrointestinal endoscopists and variations between trainee specialties: results from the JETS e-portfolio.

Introduction In the UK, endoscopy certification is administered by the Joint Advisory Group on Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (JAG). Since 2011, certification for upper and lower gastrointestinal endoscopy has been awarded via a national (JETS) e-portfolio to the main training specialties of: gastroenterology, gastrointestinal surgeons (GS) and non-medical endoscopists (NME). Trends in endoscopy certification and differences between trainee specialties were analyzed. Methods This prospective UK-wide observational study identified trainees awarded gastroscopy, sigmoidoscopy, colonoscopy (provisional and full) certification between June 2011 - 2017. Trends in certification, procedures and time-to-certification, and key performance indicators (KPIs) in the 3-month pre- and post-certification period were compared between the three main training specialties. Results Three thousand one hundred fifty-seven endoscopy-related certifications were awarded to 1928 trainees from gastroenterology (52.3 %), GS (28.4 %) and NME (16.5 â€Š%) specialties. During the study period, certification numbers increased for all modalities and specialties, particularly NME trainees. For gastroscopy and colonoscopy, procedures-to-certification were lowest for GS ( P  < 0.001), whereas time-to-certification was consistently shortest in NMEs ( P  < 0.001). A post-certification reduction in mean cecal intubation rate (95.2 % to 93.8 %, P  < 0.001) was observed in colonoscopy, and D2 intubation (97.6 % to 96.2 %, P  < 0.001) and J-maneuver (97.3 % to 95.8 %, P  < 0.001) in gastroscopy. Overall, average pre- and post-certification KPIs still exceeded national minimum standards. There was an increase in PDR for NMEs after provisional colonoscopy certification but a decrease in PDR for GS trainees after sigmoidoscopy and full colonoscopy certification. Conclusion Despite variations among trainee specialties, average pre- and post-certification KPIs for certified trainees met national standards, suggesting that JAG certification is a transparent benchmark which adequately safeguards competency in endoscopy training.