Patient safety incidents in endoscopy: a human factors analysis of nonprocedural significant harm incidents from the National Reporting and Learning System (NRLS).

BACKGROUND: Despite advances in understanding and reducing the risk of endoscopic procedures, there is little consideration of the safety of the wider endoscopy service. Patient safety incidents (PSIs) still occur. We sought to identify nonprocedural PSIs (nPSIs) and their causative factors from a human factors perspective and generate ideas for safety improvement. METHODS: Endoscopy-specific PSI reports were extracted from the National Reporting and Learning System (NRLS). A retrospective, cross-sectional human factors analysis of data was performed. Two independent researchers coded data using a hybrid thematic analysis approach. The Human Factors Analysis and Classification System (HFACS) was used to code contributory factors. Analysis informed creation of driver diagrams and key recommendations for safety improvement in endoscopy. RESULTS: From 2017 to 2019, 1181 endoscopy-specific PSIs of significant harm were reported across England and Wales, with 539 (45.6%) being nPSIs. Five categories accounted for over 80% of all incidents, with "follow-up and surveillance" being the largest (23.4% of all nPSIs). From the free-text incident reports, 487 human factors codes were identified. Decision-based errors were the most common act prior to PSI occurrence. Other frequent preconditions to incidents were focused on environmental factors, particularly overwhelmed resources, patient factors, and ineffective team communication. Lack of staffing, standard operating procedures, effective systems, and clinical pathways were also contributory. Seven key recommendations for improving safety have been made in response to our findings. CONCLUSIONS: This was the first national-level human factors analysis of endoscopy-specific PSIs. This work will inform safety improvement strategies and should empower individual services to review their approach to safety.

Cancer Biology or Ineffective Surveillance? A multicentre retrospective analysis of colitis-associated post-colonoscopy colorectal cancers.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) is associated with high rates of post-colonoscopy colorectal cancer (PCCRC), but further in-depth qualitative analyses are required to determine whether they result from inadequate surveillance or aggressive IBD cancer evolution. METHODS: All IBD patients who had a colorectal cancer (CRC) diagnosed between January 2015 to July 2019 and a recent (<4 years) surveillance colonoscopy at one of four English hospital trusts underwent root cause analyses as recommended by the World Endoscopy Organisation to identify plausible PCCRC causative factors. RESULTS: 61% (n=22/36) of the included IBD CRCs were PCCRCs. They developed in patients with high cancer risk factors (77.8%; n=28/36) requiring annual surveillance, yet 57.1% (n=20/35) had inappropriately delayed surveillance. Most PCCRCs developed in situations where (i) an endoscopically unresectable lesion was detected (40.9%; n=9/22), (ii) there was a deviation from the planned management pathway (40.9%; n=9/22) e.g. service, clinician or patient-related delays in acting on a detected lesion, or (iii) lesions were potentially missed as they were typically located within areas of active inflammation or post-inflammatory change (36.4%; n=8/22). CONCLUSIONS: IBD PCCRC prevention will require more proactive strategies to reduce endoscopic inflammatory burden, improve lesion optical characterisation, adherence to recommended surveillance intervals and patient acceptance of prophylactic colectomy. However, the significant proportion appearing to originate from non-adenomatous-looking mucosa which fail to yield neoplasia on biopsy yet display aggressive cancer evolution highlight the limitations of current surveillance. Emerging molecular biomarkers may play a role in enhancing cancer risk stratification in future clinical practice.

Development, validation, and results of a national endoscopy safety attitudes questionnaire (Endo-SAQ).

Background and study aims Safety attitudes are linked to patient outcomes. The Joint Advisory Group on Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (JAG) identifies the need to improve our understanding of safety culture in endoscopy. We describe the development and validation of the Endo-SAQ (endoscopy safety attitudes questionnaire) and the results of a national survey of staff attitudes. Methods Questions from the original SAQ were adapted to reflect endoscopy-specific content. This was refined by an expert group, followed by a pilot study to assess acceptability. The refined Endo-SAQ (comprising 35 questions across six domains) was disseminated to endoscopy staff across the UK and Ireland. Outcomes were domain scores and the percentage of positive responses (score ≥75/100) per domain. Descriptive and comparative analyses were performed. Binary logistic regression identified staff and service factors associated with positive scores. Validity and reliability of Endo-SAQ were assessed through psychometric analysis. Results After expert review, four questions in the preliminary Endo-SAQ were adjusted. Sixty-one participants undertook the pilot study with good acceptability. A total of 453 participants completed the refined Endo-SAQ. There were positive responses in teamwork, safety climate, job satisfaction, and working conditions domains. Endoscopists had significantly more positive responses to stress recognition and working conditions than nursing staff. JAG accreditation was associated with positive scores in safety climate and job satisfaction domains. Endo-SAQ met thresholds of construct validity and reliability. Conclusions Endoscopy staff had largely positive safety attitudes scores but there were significant differences across domains and staff. There is evidence for the validity and reliability of Endo-SAQ. Endo-SAQ could complement current measures of patient safety in endoscopy and be used in evaluation and research.

Curriculum for training in endoscopic mucosal resection in the colon: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Position Statement.

Endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) is the standard of care for the complete removal of large (≥ 10 mm) nonpedunculated colorectal polyps (LNPCPs). Increased detection of LNPCPs owing to screening colonoscopy, plus high observed rates of incomplete resection and need for surgery call for a standardized approach to training in EMR. 1 : Trainees in EMR should have achieved basic competence in diagnostic colonoscopy, < 10-mm polypectomy, pedunculated polypectomy, and common methods of gastrointestinal endoscopic hemostasis. The role of formal training courses is emphasized. Training may then commence in vivo under the direct supervision of a trainer. 2 : Endoscopy units training endoscopists in EMR should have specific processes in place to support and facilitate training. 3: A trained EMR practitioner should have mastered theoretical knowledge including how to assess an LNPCP for risk of submucosal invasion, how to interpret the potential difficulty of a particular EMR procedure, how to decide whether to remove a particular LNPCP en bloc or piecemeal, whether the risks of electrosurgical energy can be avoided for a particular LNPCP, the different devices required for EMR, management of adverse events, and interpretation of reports provided by histopathologists. 4: Trained EMR practitioners should be familiar with the patient consent process for EMR. 5: The development of endoscopic non-technical skills (ENTS) and team interaction are important for trainees in EMR. 6: Differences in recommended technique exist between EMR performed with and without electrosurgical energy. Common to both is a standardized technique based upon dynamic injection, controlled and precise snare placement, safety checks prior to the application of tissue transection (cold snare) or electrosurgical energy (hot snare), and interpretation of the post-EMR resection defect. 7: A trained EMR practitioner must be able to manage adverse events associated with EMR including intraprocedural bleeding and perforation, and post-procedural bleeding. Delayed perforation should be avoided by correct interpretation of the post-EMR defect and treatment of deep mural injury. 8: A trained EMR practitioner must be able to communicate EMR procedural findings to patients and provide them with a plan in case of adverse events after discharge and a follow-up plan. 9: A trained EMR practitioner must be able to detect and interrogate a post-endoscopic resection scar for residual or recurrent adenoma and apply treatment if necessary. 10: Prior to independent practice, a minimum of 30 EMR procedures should be performed, culminating in a trainer-guided assessment of competency using a validated assessment tool, taking account of procedural difficulty (e. g. using the SMSA polyp score). 11: Trained practitioners should log their key performance indicators (KPIs) of polypectomy during independent practice. A guide for target KPIs is provided in this document.

DECIDE: Delphi Expert Consensus Statement on Inflammatory Bowel Disease Dysplasia Shared Management Decision-Making.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Inflammatory bowel disease colitis-associated dysplasia is managed with either enhanced surveillance and endoscopic resection or prophylactic surgery. The rate of progression to cancer after a dysplasia diagnosis remains uncertain in many cases and patients have high thresholds for accepting proctocolectomy. Individualised discussion of management options is encouraged to take place between patients and their multidisciplinary teams for best outcomes. We aimed to develop a toolkit to support a structured, multidisciplinary and shared decision-making approach to discussions about dysplasia management options between clinicians and their patients. METHODS: Evidence from systematic literature reviews, mixed-methods studies conducted with key stakeholders, and decision-making expert recommendations were consolidated to draft consensus statements by the DECIDE steering group. These were then subjected to an international, multidisciplinary modified electronic Delphi process until an a priori threshold of 80% agreement was achieved to establish consensus for each statement. RESULTS: In all, 31 members [15 gastroenterologists, 14 colorectal surgeons and two nurse specialists] from nine countries formed the Delphi panel. We present the 18 consensus statements generated after two iterative rounds of anonymous voting. CONCLUSIONS: By consolidating evidence for best practice using literature review and key stakeholder and decision-making expert consultation, we have developed international consensus recommendations to support health care professionals counselling patients on the management of high cancer risk colitis-associated dysplasia. The final toolkit includes clinician and patient decision aids to facilitate shared decision-making.

JAG consensus statements for training and certification in colonoscopy.

Introduction: In the UK, endoscopy certification is awarded when trainees attain minimum competency standards for independent practice. A national evidence-based review was undertaken to update and develop standards and recommendations for colonoscopy training and certification. Methods: Under the oversight of the Joint Advisory Group (JAG), a modified Delphi process was conducted between 2019 and 2020 with multisociety expert representation. Following literature review and Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations appraisal, recommendation statements on colonoscopy training and certification were formulated and subjected to anonymous voting to obtain consensus. Accepted statements were peer reviewed by JAG and relevant stakeholders for incorporation into the updated colonoscopy certification pathway. Results: In total, 45 recommendation statements were generated under the domains of: definition of competence (13), acquisition of competence (20), assessment of competence (8) and postcertification support (4). The consensus process led to revised criteria for colonoscopy certification, comprising: (1) achieving key performance indicators defined within British Society of Gastroenterology standards (ie, unassisted caecal intubation rate >90%, rectal retroversion >90%, polyp detection rate >15%+, polyp retrieval rate >90%, patient comfort <10% with moderate-severe discomfort); (2) minimum procedure count 280+; (3) performing 15+ procedures over the preceding 3 months; (4) attendance of the JAG Basic Skills in Colonoscopy course; (5) terminal ileal intubation rates of 60%+ in inflammatory bowel disease; (6) satisfying requirements for formative direct observation of procedure skills (DOPS) and direct observation of polypectomy skills (Size, Morphology, Site, Access (SMSA) level 2); (7) evidence of reflective practice as documented on the JAG Endoscopy Training System reflection tool; (8) successful performance in summative DOPS. Conclusion: The UK standards for training and certification in colonoscopy have been updated, culminating in a single-stage certification process with emphasis on polypectomy competency (SMSA Level 2+). These standards are intended to support training, improve standards of colonoscopy and polypectomy, and provide support to the newly independent practitioner.

JAG consensus statements for training and certification in flexible sigmoidoscopy.

Introduction: Joint Advisory Group (JAG) certification in endoscopy is awarded when trainees attain minimum competency standards for independent practice. A national evidence-based review was undertaken to update standards for training and certification in flexible sigmoidoscopy (FS). Methods: A modified Delphi process was conducted between 2019 and 2020 with multisociety representation from experts and trainees. Following literature review and Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations appraisal, recommendation statements on FS training and certification were formulated and subjected to anonymous voting to obtain consensus. Accepted statements were peer-reviewed by national stakeholders for incorporation into the JAG FS certification pathway. Results: In total, 41 recommendation statements were generated under the domains of: definition of competence (13), acquisition of competence (17), assessment of competence (7) and postcertification support (4). The consensus process led to revised criteria for colonoscopy certification, comprising: (A) achieving key performance indicators defined within British Society of Gastroenterology standards (ie, rectal retroversion >90%, polyp retrieval rate >90%, patient comfort <10% with moderate-severe discomfort); (B) minimum procedure count ≥175; (C) performing 15+ procedures over the preceding 3 months; (D) attendance of the JAG Basic Skills in Lower gastrointestinal Endoscopy course; (E) satisfying requirements for formative direct observation of procedural skill (DOPS) and direct observation of polypectomy skill (SMSA level 1); (F) evidence of reflective practice as documented on the JAG Endoscopy Training System reflection tool and (G) successful performance in summative DOPS. Conclusion: The UK standards for training and certification in FS have been updated to support training, uphold standards in FS and polypectomy, and provide support to the newly independent practitioner.

Development of the "Teamwork in Endoscopy Assessment Module for Endoscopic Non-Technical Skills" (TEAM-ENTS) behavioral marker system.

BACKGROUND: Non-technical skills (NTS) are integral to team performance and subsequent quality and safety of care. Behavioral marker systems (BMSs) are now increasingly used in healthcare to support the training and assessment of team NTS. Within gastrointestinal endoscopy, this is an area of novel research. The aims of this study were to define the core relevant NTS for endoscopy teams and develop a preliminary framework for a team-based BMS known as TEAM-ENTS (Teamwork in Endoscopy Assessment Module for Endoscopic Non-Technical Skills). METHODS: This study was conducted in two phases. In phase 1, a literature review of team-based BMSs was performed to inform an interview study of core endoscopy team members. Cognitive task analysis was used to break down the NTS relevant to endoscopy teams. Framework analysis generated the structure for the preliminary TEAM-ENTS framework. In phase 2, a modified Delphi process was undertaken to refine the items of the framework. RESULTS: Seven consultant endoscopists and six nurses were interviewed. The final coding framework consisted of 88 codes grouped into five overarching categories. In total, 58 participants were recruited to the Delphi panel. In the first round, nine elements and 37 behavioral descriptors did not meet consensus. Following item adjustment, merging and deletion, all remaining items met consensus thresholds after the second round. The refined TEAM-ENTS BMS consists of five categories, 16 elements, and 47 behavioral descriptors. CONCLUSIONS: The refined TEAM-ENTS behavioral marker system was developed to reflect the core NTS relevant to endoscopy teams. Future studies will aim to fully validate this tool.

Evaluation of a real-time computer-aided polyp detection system during screening colonoscopy: AI-DETECT study.

BACKGROUND: Polyp detection and resection during colonoscopy significantly reduce long-term colorectal cancer risk. Computer-aided detection (CADe) may increase polyp identification but has undergone limited clinical evaluation. Our aim was to assess the effectiveness of CADe at colonoscopy within a bowel cancer screening program (BCSP). METHODS: This prospective, randomized controlled trial involved all eight screening-accredited colonoscopists at an English National Health Service (NHS) BCSP center (February 2020 to December 2021). Patients were randomized to CADe or standard colonoscopy. Patients meeting NHS criteria for bowel cancer screening were included. The primary outcome of interest was polyp detection rate (PDR). RESULTS: 658 patients were invited and 44 were excluded. A total of 614 patients were randomized to CADe (n = 308) or standard colonoscopy (n = 306); 35 cases were excluded from the per-protocol analysis due to poor bowel preparation (n = 10), an incomplete procedure (n = 24), or a data issue (n = 1). Endocuff Vision was frequently used and evenly distributed (71.7 % CADe and 69.2 % standard). On intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis, there was a borderline significant difference in PDR (85.7 % vs. 79.7 %; P = 0.05) but no significant difference in adenoma detection rate (ADR; 71.4 % vs. 65.0 %; P = 0.09) for CADe vs. standard groups, respectively. On per-protocol analysis, no significant difference was observed in these rates. There was no significant difference in procedure times. CONCLUSIONS: In high-performing colonoscopists in a BCSP who routinely used Endocuff Vision, CADe improved PDR but not ADR. CADe appeared to have limited benefit in a BCSP setting where procedures are performed by experienced colonoscopists.

Green endoscopy: British Society of Gastroenterology (BSG), Joint Accreditation Group (JAG) and Centre for Sustainable Health (CSH) joint consensus on practical measures for environmental sustainability in endoscopy.

GI endoscopy is highly resource-intensive with a significant contribution to greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and waste generation. Sustainable endoscopy in the context of climate change is now the focus of mainstream discussions between endoscopy providers, units and professional societies. In addition to broader global challenges, there are some specific measures relevant to endoscopy units and their practices, which could significantly reduce environmental impact. Awareness of these issues and guidance on practical interventions to mitigate the carbon footprint of GI endoscopy are lacking. In this consensus, we discuss practical measures to reduce the impact of endoscopy on the environment applicable to endoscopy units and practitioners. Adoption of these measures will facilitate and promote new practices and the evolution of a more sustainable specialty.

National census of UK endoscopy services 2021.

Introduction: The Joint Advisory Group on Gastrointestinal (GI) Endoscopy (JAG) biennial census provides a unique view of UK endoscopy. The 2021 census was conducted to understand the impact of ongoing pressures, highlighted in the previous census, as well as COVID-19. Methods: The census was sent to all JAG-registered services in April 2021. Data were analysed across the domains of activity, waiting time targets, workforce, COVID-19, safety, GI bleeding, anaesthetic support, equipment and decontamination. Statistical methods were used to determine associations between domain-specific outcome variables and core demographic data. Results: 321 services completed the census (79.2% response rate). In the first 3 months of 2021, 57.9% of NHS services met urgent cancer waits, 17.9% met routine waits and 13.4% met surveillance waits. Workforce redeployment was the predominant reason cited for not meeting targets. There were significant regional differences in the proportion of patients waiting 6 or more weeks (p=0.001). During the pandemic, 64.8% of NHS services had staff redeployed and there was a mean sickness rate of 8.5%. Services were, on average, at 79.3% activity compared with 2 years ago. JAG-accredited services are more likely to meet urgent cancer waits, with a lower proportion of patient waiting 6 weeks or more (p=0.03). Over 10% of services stated that equipment shortage interfered with service delivery. Conclusions: Services are adapting to continued pressure and there are signs of a focused response to demand at a time of ongoing uncertainty. This census' findings will inform ongoing guidance from JAG and relevant stakeholders.

Validation of post-colonoscopy colorectal cancer (PCCRC) cases reported at national level following local root cause analysis: REFLECT study.

Objective: Our aim was to determine aetiology of post-colonoscopy colorectal cancers (PCCRCs) identified from population-based data through local root cause analysis at a high-volume mixed secondary and tertiary referral centre. Design/method: A subset of national cancer registration data, collected by the National Cancer Registration and Analysis Service, was used to determine PCCRCs diagnosed between 2005 and 2013 at our centre.Root cause analysis was performed for each identified PCCRC, using World Endoscopy Organisation recommendations, to validate it and assess most plausible explanation. We also assessed whether patient, clinician and/or service factors were primarily responsible. Results: Of 107 'PCCRC' cases provided from the national dataset, 20 were excluded (16 missing data, 4 duplicates). 87 'PCCRC' cases were included of which 58 were true PCCRCs and 29 false PCCRCs.False PCCRCs comprised 17 detected cancers (cancer diagnosed within 6 months of negative colonoscopy) and 12 cases did not meet PCCRC criteria. Inflammatory bowel disease was the most common risk factor (18/58) and the most common site was rectum (19/58). The most common explanation was 'possible missed lesion, prior examination negative but inadequate' (23/58) and clinician factors were primarily responsible for PCCRC occurrence in most cases (37/58). Conclusion: Our single-centre study shows, after local analysis, there was misclassification of PCCRCs identified from a population-based registry. The degree of such error will vary between registries. Most PCCRCs occurred in cases of sub-optimal examination as indicated by poor photodocumentation. Effective mechanisms to feedback root cause analyses are critical for quality improvement.

Implementation of optical diagnosis with a "resect and discard" strategy in clinical practice: DISCARD3 study.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Optical diagnosis (OD) of polyps can be performed with advanced endoscopic imaging. For high-confidence diagnoses, a "resect and discard" strategy could offer significant histopathology time and cost savings. The implementation threshold is a ≥90% OD-histology surveillance interval concordance. Here we assessed the OD learning curve and feasibility of a resect and discard strategy for ≤5-mm and <10-mm polyps in a bowel cancer screening setting. METHODS: In this prospective feasibility study, 8 bowel cancer screening endoscopists completed a validated OD training module and performed procedures. All <10-mm consecutive polyps had white-light and narrow-band images taken and were given high- or low-confidence diagnoses until 120 high-confidence ≤5-mm polyp diagnoses had been performed. All polyps had standard histology. High-confidence OD errors underwent root-cause analysis. Histology and OD-derived surveillance intervals were calculated. RESULTS: Of 565 invited patients, 525 patients were included. A total of 1560 <10-mm polyps underwent OD and were resected and retrieved (1329 ≤5 mm and 231 6-9 mm). There were no <10-mm polyp cancers. High-confidence OD was accurate in 81.5% of ≤5-mm and 92.8% of 6-9-mm polyps. Sensitivity for OD of a ≤5-mm adenoma was 93.0% with a positive predictive value of 90.8%. OD-histology surveillance interval concordance for ≤5-mm OD was 91.3% (209/229) for U.S. Multi-Society Task Force, 98.3% (225/229) for European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, and 98.7% (226/229) for British Society of Gastroenterology guidelines, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: A resect and discard strategy for high-confidence ≤5-mm polyp OD in a group of bowel cancer screening colonoscopists is feasible and safe, with performance exceeding the 90% surveillance interval concordance required for implementation in clinical practice. (Clinical trial registration number: NCT04710693.).

Perception of Cancer Risk and Management Practice for Colitis-associated Dysplasia Is Influenced by Colonoscopy Experience and Workplace Affiliation: Results of an International Clinician Survey.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: A successful colitis cancer surveillance programme requires effective action to be taken when dysplasia is detected. This is the first international cross-sectional study to evaluate clinician understanding of dysplasia-cancer risk and management practice since the most recent international guidelines were introduced in 2015. METHODS: A 15-item international online survey was disseminated to gastroenterologists and colorectal surgeons. RESULTS: A total of 294 clinicians [93.5% gastroenterologists] from 60 countries responded; 23% did not have access to high-definition chromoendoscopy. University hospitals were more likely than non-academic workplaces to provide second expert histopathologist review [67% vs 46%; p = 0.002] and formal multidisciplinary team meeting discussion [73% vs 52%; p = 0.001] of dysplasia cases. Perceptions of 5-year cancer risk associated with endoscopically unresectable low-grade dysplasia varied between 0% and 100%. Non-academic hospital affiliation was predictive of lower perceived cancer risks. Although most [98.4%] respondents advised a colectomy for endoscopically unresectable visible high-grade dysplasia, only 34.4% advised a colectomy for unresectable visible low-grade dysplasia. Respondents from university hospitals were more likely to consider colectomy for multifocal low-grade dysplasia (odds ratio [OR] 2.17). If invisible unifocal low-grade dysplasia was detected, continued surveillance over colectomy was the preferred management among clinicians working mainly in private clinics [OR 9.4] and least preferred in those who had performed more than 50 surveillance colonoscopies [OR 0.41]. CONCLUSIONS: Clinicians with less surveillance colonoscopy experience and from non-academic centres appear to have lower cancer risk perceptions and are less likely to advocate colectomy for higher-risk low-grade dysplasia. Further education may align current management practice with clinical guidelines.