Literature DB >> 21997723

Quality of colonoscopy performance among gastroenterology and surgical trainees: a need for common training standards for all trainees?

J E Leyden1, G A Doherty, A Hanley, D A McNamara, C Shields, M Leader, F E Murray, S E Patchett, G C Harewood.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIM: Cecal intubation and polyp detection rates are objective measures of colonoscopy performance. Minimum cecal intubation rates greater than 90% have been endorsed by the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE) and the Joint Advisory Group (JAG) UK. Performance data for medical and surgical trainee endoscopists are limited, and we used endoscopy quality parameters to compare these two groups.
METHODS: Retrospective review of all single-endoscopist colonoscopies done by gastroenterology and surgical trainees ("registrars," equivalent to fellows, postgraduate year 5) with more than two years' endoscopy experience, in 2006 and 2007 at a single academic medical center. Completion rates and polyp detection rates for endoscopists performing more than 50 colonoscopies during the study period were audited. Colonoscopy withdrawal time was prospectively observed in a representative subset of 140 patients.
RESULTS: Among 3079 audited single-endoscopist colonoscopies, seven gastroenterology trainees performed 1998 procedures and six surgery trainees performed 1081. The crude completion rate was 82%, 84% for gastroenterology trainees and 78% for surgery trainees (P < 0.0001). Adjusted for poor bowel preparation quality and obstructing lesions, the completion rate was 89%; 93% for gastroenterology trainees, and 84% for surgical trainees (P < 0.0001). The polyp detection rate was 19% overall, with 21% and 14% for gastroenterology and surgical trainees, respectively (P < 0.0001). The adenoma detection rate in patients over 50 was 12%; gastroenterology trainees 14% and surgical trainees 9% (P = 0.0065). In the prospectively audited procedures, median withdrawal time was greater in the gastroenterology trainee group and polyp detection rates correlated closely with withdrawal time (r = 0.99).
CONCLUSION: The observed disparity in endoscopic performance between surgical and gastroenterology trainees suggests the need for a combined or unitary approach to endoscopy training for specialist medical and surgical trainees. © Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21997723     DOI: 10.1055/s-0030-1256633

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Endoscopy        ISSN: 0013-726X            Impact factor:   10.093


  15 in total

Review 1.  Achieving competence in colonoscopy: Milestones and the need for a new endoscopic curriculum in gastroenterology training.

Authors:  Sara B Stanford; Stephanie Lee; Candace Masaquel; Robert H Lee
Journal:  World J Gastrointest Endosc       Date:  2015-12-10

2.  Who Performs Colonoscopy? Workforce Trends Over Space and Time.

Authors:  Jan M Eberth; Michele J Josey; Lee R Mobley; Davidson O Nicholas; Donna B Jeffe; Cassie Odahowski; Janice C Probst; Mario Schootman
Journal:  J Rural Health       Date:  2017-11-16       Impact factor: 4.333

Review 3.  Post-Colonoscopy Complications: A Systematic Review, Time Trends, and Meta-Analysis of Population-Based Studies.

Authors:  Ankie Reumkens; Eveline J A Rondagh; C Minke Bakker; Bjorn Winkens; Ad A M Masclee; Silvia Sanduleanu
Journal:  Am J Gastroenterol       Date:  2016-06-14       Impact factor: 10.864

4.  Association of Adenoma and Proximal Sessile Serrated Polyp Detection Rates With Endoscopist Characteristics.

Authors:  Shashank Sarvepalli; Ari Garber; Michael B Rothberg; Gautam Mankaney; John McMichael; Gareth Morris-Stiff; John J Vargo; Maged K Rizk; Carol A Burke
Journal:  JAMA Surg       Date:  2019-07-01       Impact factor: 14.766

Review 5.  Artificial intelligence-assisted colonoscopy: a narrative review of current data and clinical applications.

Authors:  James Weiquan Li; Lai Mun Wang; Tiing Leong Ang
Journal:  Singapore Med J       Date:  2022-03       Impact factor: 3.331

6.  Risk factors for early colonoscopic perforation include non-gastroenterologist endoscopists: a multivariable analysis.

Authors:  Barbara Bielawska; Andrew G Day; David A Lieberman; Lawrence C Hookey
Journal:  Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol       Date:  2013-07-23       Impact factor: 11.382

7.  Detailed quantitative assessment of colonic morphology at CT colonography using novel software: a feasibility and reproducibility study.

Authors:  Charles N Weber; Anna S Lev-Toaff; Marc S Levine; Sandra Sudarsky; Lutz Guendel; Bernhard Geiger; Hanna M Zafar
Journal:  Med Biol Eng Comput       Date:  2016-06-11       Impact factor: 2.602

8.  Polypectomy techniques, endoscopist characteristics, and serious gastrointestinal adverse events.

Authors:  Askar Chukmaitov; Cathy J Bradley; Bassam Dahman; Umaporn Siangphoe; Doumit BouHaidar; Joan L Warren
Journal:  J Surg Oncol       Date:  2014-04-03       Impact factor: 3.454

9.  Higher adenoma detection, sessile serrated lesion detection and proximal sessile serrated lesion detection are associated with physician specialty and performance on Direct Observation of Procedural Skills.

Authors:  Jennifer Telford; Lovedeep Gondara; Steven Pi; Laura Gentile; Robert Enns
Journal:  BMJ Open Gastroenterol       Date:  2021-06

10.  Endoscopist specialty is associated with colonoscopy quality.

Authors:  Mengzhu Jiang; Maida J Sewitch; Alan N Barkun; Lawrence Joseph; Robert J Hilsden
Journal:  BMC Gastroenterol       Date:  2013-05-03       Impact factor: 3.067

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.