Opportunity costs of gastrointestinal endoscopic training in Canada

BACKGROUND

No data exist to define the opportunity costs related to instruction in endoscopic procedures in Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada-accredited teaching centres. Academic and institutional administrators expect staff to achieve acceptable performance standards. There is a need to measure some of the effects of training activity in the establishment of such standards.

OBJECTIVE

To measure the effect of resident training in colonoscopy on real procedure times and, as a secondary goal, to estimate procedural losses related to the process of training.

METHODS

Real procedure times for ambulatory colonoscopy in a single academic, hospital-based endoscopy unit were documented. Times for certified endoscopy instructors functioning solo were compared with times for procedures involving trainees at several levels of colonoscopic experience. Procedural reductions associated with resident training were estimated based on the parameters derived from the results. The analysis was executed retrospectively using prospectively collected data.

RESULTS

Resident training prolonged procedure times for ambulatory colonoscopy by 50%. The trainee effect was consistent, although variable in degree, among a variety of endoscopy instructors. Such increased procedure times have the potential to reduce case throughput and endoscopist remuneration.

CONCLUSIONS

Resident training in colonoscopy in a Canadian certified training program has significant negative effects on case throughput and endoscopist billings. These factors should be considered in any assessment of performance in similar training environments.     

Impact of Operator Fatigue on Endoscopy Performance: Implications for Procedure Scheduling

Background With increasing volumes of endoscopic procedures, endoscopists’ workload has had to increase to meet this escalating demand. The aim of this study was to characterize the impact of endoscopist fatigue on quality of endoscopy performance by comparing outcomes based on chronological procedure order. Methods Consecutive endoscopic procedures were prospectively observed. Quality indicators of colonoscopy (cecal intubation rate, lesion detection, withdrawal time, insertion time) and esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) duration were compared among procedures based on their chronological sequence. Results Colonoscopy completion rates declined with successive procedures; completion for 1st to 3rd procedures (90%) was significantly higher than for 4th and subsequent procedures (76%) (P = 0.03). Median insertion times lengthened; times for 1st to 4th procedures [8 min, interquartile range (IQR) 6–11 min] were shorter than for 5th and subsequent procedures (10 min, IQR 7–15 min) (P = 0.06). Lesion detection rates, withdrawal times, and EGD duration remained stable with procedure order. Conclusions Colonoscopy cecal intubation rates appear to decline with successive procedures. There also appears to be a trend for insertion times to lengthen. Reassuringly, other quality indicators of colonoscopy (lesion detection and withdrawal time) and EGD duration do not appear to be impacted by repetitive procedures.     

Influenza Vaccine: Epidemiology of norovirus and viral gastroenteritis in Ontario,Canada, 2009–2014

BackgroundNorovirus is the most common cause of acute gastroenteritis in Canada. The illness causes great morbidity and high societal costs. The objective of this article is to describe the epidemiology of norovirus in the province of Ontario, Canada from 2009 to 2014.MethodsTo assess activity of norovirus and viral gastroenteritis (VGE) in Ontario, three datasets were acquired from the provincial government: two traditional surveillance datasets (outbreak and laboratory) and syndromic surveillance data (telehealth), all spanning 2009–2014. All outbreaks, laboratory submissions and telehealth calls were first assessed for total VGE. Norovirus and norovirus-like illness totals were calculated as a proportion of VGE to estimate agent-specific activity levels. Affected institution types, sexes and age groups were also analyzed.ResultsBetween 2009 and 2014, 41.5% of VGE outbreaks, 63.4% of VGE laboratory submissions and 36.6% of all acute gastroenteritis-related (not restricted to viral causes) telehealth calls were attributed to norovirus and norovirus-like illness in Ontario. The most commonly affected institution type was long-term care homes and the most commonly affected age groups were younger (younger than five years) and older (older than 65 years) individuals. Females were slightly more frequently affected than males.ConclusionNorovirus and norovirus-like illnesses were the leading cause of VGE in Ontario between 2009 and 2014. They comprised the greatest percentage of VGE when compared with all other VGE-associated viruses. Additional work is needed to determine all component costs and necessary public health actions to reduce the burden of disease.     

Canadian Association of Gastroenterology consensus guidelines on safety and quality indicators in endoscopy

BACKGROUND:

Increasing use of gastrointestinal endoscopy, particularly for colorectal cancer screening, and increasing emphasis on health care quality, highlight the need for clearly defined, evidence-based processes to support quality improvement in endoscopy.

OBJECTIVE:

To identify processes and indicators of quality and safety relevant to high-quality endoscopy service delivery.

METHODS:

A multidisciplinary group of 35 voting participants developed recommendation statements and performance indicators. Systematic literature searches generated 50 initial statements that were revised iteratively following a modified Delphi approach using a web-based evaluation and voting tool. Statement development and evidence evaluation followed the AGREE (Appraisal of Guidelines, REsearch and Evaluation) and GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) guidelines. At the consensus conference, participants voted anonymously on all statements using a 6-point scale. Subsequent web-based voting evaluated recommendations for specific, individual quality indicators, safety indicators and mandatory endoscopy reporting fields. Consensus was defined a priori as agreement by 80% of participants.

RESULTS:

Consensus was reached on 23 recommendation statements addressing the following: ethics (statement 1: agreement 100%), facility standards and policies (statements 2 to 9: 90% to 100%), quality assurance (statements 10 to 13: 94% to 100%), training, education, competency and privileges (statements 14 to 19: 97% to 100%), endoscopy reporting standards (statements 20 and 21: 97% to 100%) and patient perceptions (statements 22 and 23: 100%). Additionally, 18 quality indicators (agreement 83% to 100%), 20 safety indicators (agreement 77% to 100%) and 23 recommended endoscopy-reporting elements (agreement 91% to 100%) were identified.Statement 1. For a patient to give a physician informed consent to perform an elective endoscopic procedure, the patient must be advised, in a timely fashion, of all relevant information about the procedure, its risks, benefits and alternatives, if any, and be given an opportunity to ask questions that the physician must answer.Evidence grade: Low/very lowStrength of recommendation: Do it, 91%; possibly do it, 6%; possibly don’t do it, 3%Level of agreement with recommendation: Agree, 100% (agree strongly, 65%; agree moderately, 29%; agree slightly, 6%)Statement 2. Endoscopy facilities should meet or exceed defined operating standards, in all domains, consistent with accreditation under the appropriate national or regional standards.Evidence grade: Low/very lowStrength of recommendation: Do it, 91%; possibly do it, 6%; don’t do it, 3%Level of agreement with recommendation: Agree, 97% (agree strongly, 85%; agree moderately, 12%; disagree slightly, 3%)Statement 10. Endoscopy facilities should maintain a comprehensive quality improvement program incorporating formal, regular, scheduled review of performance reports.Evidence grade: Low/very lowStrength of recommendation: Do it, 85%; possibly do it, 9%; possibly don’t do it, 3%; don’t do it, 3%Level of agreement with recommendation: Agree, 94% (agree strongly, 76%; agree moderately, 12%; agree slightly, 6%; disagree slightly, 6%)Statement 14. Endoscopy facilities should provide high-quality education programs or opportunities for all staff.Evidence grade: Very lowStrength of recommendation: Do it, 86%; possibly do it, 14%Level of agreement with recommendation: Agree, 100% (agree strongly, 66%; agree moderately, 26%; agree slightly, 9%)Statement 19. Endoscopists’ privileges should be subject to formal, regular, scheduled review to ensure that renewal is based on documented competence to perform specified procedures consistent with appropriate current standards.Evidence grade: Low/very lowStrength of recommendation: Do it, 94%; possibly do it, 3%; possibly don’t do it, 3%Level of agreement with recommendation: Agree, 97% (agree strongly, 89%; agree moderately, 9%; disagree slightly, 3%)Statement 20. Endoscopic procedures should be reported in a standardized electronic format, including mandatory reporting fields, to provide full documentation of all necessary clinical and quality measures.Evidence grade: Low/very lowStrength of recommendation: Do it, 82%; possibly do it, 15%; don’t do it, 3%Level of agreement with recommendation: Agree, 97% (agree strongly, 76%; agree moderately, 15%; agree slightly, 6%; disagree strongly, 3%)Statement 21. Endoscopy facilities should implement policies to monitor and ensure the timeliness and completeness of procedure reporting.Evidence grade: Low/very lowStrength of recommendation: Do it, 100%Level of agreement with recommendation: Agree, 100% (agree strongly, 91%; agree moderately, 6%; agree slightly, 3%)Statement 22. Endoscopy facilities should ensure that the services they provide are patient-centred.Evidence grade: Moderate to very lowStrength of recommendation: Do it, 85%; possibly do it, 12%; don’t do it, 3%Level of agreement with recommendation: Agree, 100% (agree strongly, 71%; agree moderately, 26%; agree slightly, 3%)Statement 23. Endoscopy facilities should systematically and at least annually solicit patient feedback, report the results to the service and to the institution’s quality committee, and implement effective measures to address patients’ concerns.Evidence grade: Very lowStrength of recommendation: Do it, 94%; possibly do it, 6%Level of agreement with recommendation: Agree, 100% (agree strongly, 82%; agree moderately, 15%; agree slightly, 3%)

DISCUSSION:

The consensus process identified a clear need for high-quality clinical and outcomes research to support quality improvement in the delivery of endoscopy services.

CONCLUSIONS:

The guidelines support quality improvement in endoscopy by providing explicit recommendations on systematic monitoring, assessment and modification of endoscopy service delivery to yield benefits for all patients affected by the practice of gastrointestinal endoscopy.     

Adherence to European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy recommendations of endoscopists performing small bowel capsule endoscopy in Italy

BackgroundThe European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) has recently issued a technical review focused on small bowel capsule endoscopy (SBCE).AimTo compare SBCE current practice in Italy to ESGE technical recommendations.Material and methodsA dedicated per-centre semi-quantitative questionnaire was prepared by a group of SBCE experts. One-hundred-fifty Centres were invited to participate in the data collection concerning SBCEs performed between June 2016 and June 2017. Data were compared with ESGE recommendations.Results120 Centres participated in the data collection. Current practices agreed with ESGE recommendations in 56.3% (9/16) of the issues evaluated. Differences between ESGE recommendations and current practice concerned the management of patients with pacemakers or cardiac implantable defibrillators (which was in agreement with ESGE recommendations in 31.7% and 15.8% of Centres, respectively), the SBCE setting (only 51% of SBCEs were performed as outpatients procedures), the assessment of capsule excretion (timing and modality were in agreement with ESGE recommendation in 20.0% of Centres), and in the involvement of trained nurses or fellows in training as pre-readers (7/120; 5.8%).ConclusionsAlthough SBCE is widely used and largely available in Italy, there are still some technical, practical and organizational issues that can be modified to bridge the gap between current practice and ESGE guideline recommendations.     

急诊内镜联合选择性动脉造影诊治上消化道大出血：7例临床分析

背景：上消化道大出血属急危重症,联合多种诊治手段有助于提高救治效果。目的：探讨急诊内镜联合选择性动脉造影在上消化道大出血诊治中的应用价值。方法：选取2009年1月～2010年12月北京军区总医院经急诊内镜止血失败或止血成功后再次大出血的7例患者并给予选择性动脉造影和栓塞治疗。观察急诊内镜联合选择性动脉造影对明确病因诊断和止血效果的价值。结果：7例患者行急诊内镜检查确诊为上消化道大出血．并经镜下止血治疗后仍有严重活动性出血．行选择性动脉造影和栓塞治疗。7例患者就诊后行急诊内镜的平均时间为4．4h．选择性动脉造影平均时间为8．4h。4例患者表现为造影剂外溢的出血直接征象．其余3例表现为异常血管分支增粗紊乱的间接征象;给予弹簧圈栓塞或明胶海绵栓塞治疗后均成功止血。结论：急诊内镜联合选择性动脉造影是一种及时、安全、有效的诊治上消化道大出血的方法。     

Indicators of safety compromise in gastrointestinal endoscopy

INTRODUCTION:

The importance of quality indicators has become increasingly recognized in gastrointestinal endoscopy. Patient safety requires the identification and monitoring of occurrences associated with harm or the potential for harm. The identification of relevant indicators of safety compromise is, therefore, a critical element that is key to the effective implementation of endoscopy quality improvement programs.

OBJECTIVE:

To identify key indicators of safety compromise in gastrointestinal endoscopy.

METHODS:

The Canadian Association of Gastroenterology Safety and Quality Indicators in Endoscopy Consensus Group was formed to address issues of quality in endoscopy. A subcommittee was formed to identify key safety indicators. A systematic literature review was undertaken, and articles pertinent to safety in endoscopy were identified and reviewed. All complications and measures used to document safety were recorded. From this, a preliminary list of 16 indicators was compiled and presented to the 35-person consensus group during a three-day meeting. A revised list of 20 items was subsequently put to the consensus group for vote for inclusion on the final list of safety indicators. Items were retained only if the consensus group highly agreed on their importance.

RESULTS:

A total of 19 indicators of safety compromise were retained and grouped into the three following categories: medication-related – the need for CPR, use of reversal agents, hypoxia, hypotension, hypertension, sedation doses in patients older than 70 years of age, allergic reactions and laryngospasm/bronchospasm; procedure-related early – perforation, immediate postpolypectomy bleeding, need for hospital admission or transfer to emergency department from the gastroenterology unit, instrument impaction, severe persistent abdominal pain requiring evaluation proven to not be perforation; and procedure-related delayed – death within 30 days of procedure, 14-day unplanned hospitalization, 14-day unplanned contact with a health provider, gastrointestinal bleeding within 14 days of procedure, infection or symptomatic metabolic complications.

CONCLUSIONS:

The 19 indicators of safety compromise in endoscopy, identified by a rigorous, evidence-based consensus process, provide clear outcomes to be recorded by all facilities as part of their continuing quality improvement programs.     

Endoscopy vs surgery in the treatment of early gastric cancer: Systematic review

AIM: To report a systematic review,establishing the available data to an unpublished 2a strength of evidence,better handling clinical practice.METHODS: A systematic review was performed using MEDLINE,EMBASE,Cochrane,LILACS,Scopus and CINAHL databases. Information of the selected studies was extracted on characteristics of trial participants,inclusion and exclusion criteria,interventions(mainly,mucosal resection and submucosal dissection vs surgical approach) and outcomes(adverse events,different survival rates,mortality,recurrence and complete resection rates). To ascertain the validity of eligible studies,the risk of bias was measured using the Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale. The analysis of the absolute risk of the outcomes was performed using the software Rev Man,by computingrisk differences(RD) of dichotomous variables. Data on RD and 95%CIs for each outcome were calculated using the Mantel-Haenszel test and inconsistency was qualified and reported in χ2 and the Higgins method(I2). Sensitivity analysis was performed when heterogeneity was higher than 50%,a subsequent assay was done and other findings were compiled.RESULTS: Eleven retrospective cohort studies were selected. The included records involved 2654 patients with early gastric cancer that filled the absolute or expanded indications for endoscopic resection. Threeyear survival data were available for six studies(n = 1197). There were no risk differences(RD) after endoscopic and surgical treatment(RD = 0.01,95%CI:-0.02-0.05,P = 0.51). Five-year survival data(n = 2310) showed no difference between the two groups(RD = 0.01,95%CI:-0.01-0.03,P = 0.46). Recurrence data were analized in five studies(1331 patients) and there was no difference between the approaches(RD = 0.01,95%CI:-0.00-0.02,P = 0.09). Adverse event data were identified in eight studies(n = 2439). A significant difference was detected(RD =-0.08,95%CI:-0.10--0.05,P 0.05),demonstrating better results with endoscopy. Mortality data were obtained in four studies(n = 1107). There was no difference between the groups(RD =-0.01,95%CI:-0.02-0.00,P = 0.22).CONCLUSION: Three-,5-year survival,recurrence and mortality are similar for both groups. Considering complication,endoscopy is better and,analyzing complete resection data,it is worse than surgery.     

Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography training in the United Kingdom: A critical review

Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography training used to be in virtually all district general hospitals, resulting in a large number of trainees with an inadequate case load and achieving poor levels of skill. Training is now restricted to a small number of trai nees working in approved units. Continuous audit of outcomes and the appointment of a training lead in the unit are essential. Use of the global rating scale helps clinicians advise hospital administration on the prior it ies for a quality training program.     

全国碘缺乏病实验室质控网络运行10年总结

目的总结全国碘缺乏病实验室外质控网络10年运行结果。方法尿碘采用“Z”比评分的方法,盐碘采用标准参考值±不确定度的方法对检测结果进行评价。结果参加质控网络的实验室数量由1999年的626个增加至2008年的1709个;省级尿碘和盐碘实验室连续5年保持全部合格;地市级尿碘和盐碘实验室的合格率由1999年70．1％和87．8％分别上升到2008年的92．6％和99．4％;县级盐碘实验室合格率由1999年的58．1％上升到96．1％。结论通过10年来全国实验室网络的运行和持续的技术培训,各级实验室的检测能力有了明显的提高。     

胶囊内镜对不明原因消化道出血诊断价值的评估

背景：对于不明原因消化道出血（OGIB），胶囊内镜是一种有价值的诊断方法。但迄今为止，该技术在OGIB诊断中应用的研究多限于小样本病例。目的：评价胶囊内镜对OGIB的诊断价值，确定其敏感性，特异性，阳性，阴性预测值和总诊断率。方法：2002年5月-2005年1月，对连续选取的91例OGIB患者行胶囊内镜检查94次，对胶囊排出时间，再检查，治疗，再出血，依从性和并发症等情况进行随访观察。结果：胶囊内镜检查的阳性率为74.7%，疑诊率为11.0%，阴性率为14.3%。其诊断OGIB的敏感性，特异性以及阳性，阴性预测值分别为94.6%、88.9%和80.0%，总诊断率为93.8%。检查过程中仅1例（1.1%）患者发生胶囊滞留，后经手术取出并证实为克罗恩病所致的肠腔狭窄。结论：胶囊内镜对于OGIB是一种有效而安全的检查手段，迟早行胶囊内镜检查可使患者早日明确诊断并得到及时治疗，从而改善预后。     

Utility of Capsule Endoscopy for the Classification of Crohn's Disease: A Multicenter Study in Korea

Capsule endoscopy can detect lesions associated with Crohn's disease in the small bowel that go unrecognized by conventional radiologic imaging. The aim of this study was to assess the value of capsule endoscopy in the classification of patients with Crohn's disease. This study was carried out on 52 patients with known Crohn's disease. Small bowel follow-through findings were compared with capsule endoscopic findings. All patients were classified according to the extent of the disease: small bowel-colon type, small bowel type, or colon type. Seventeen patients who were reported as being normal showed evidence of small bowel Crohn's disease according to capsule endoscopy. Differences were observed between the small bowel follow-through and the capsule endoscopy classification (kappa=0.54). Treatment was changed based on the results of wireless capsule endoscopy in 15 patients.