Literature DB >> 28812156

Accredited residents perform colonoscopy to the same high standards as consultants.

Dedrick Kok Hong Chan1, Reuben Kong Min Wong2, Khay Guan Yeoh2,3, Ker-Kan Tan4,5.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Endoscopy remains a critical component of General Surgery and Gastroenterology training. Whilst residents need to gain experience, the quality of endoscopy which patients receive cannot be compromised. We conducted this study to compare quality indicators between consultants and residents with regards to colonoscopy.
METHODS: A review of colonoscopies from a prospectively collected database was performed from September 2011 to February 2016. Quality indicators such as caecum intubation rate, adenoma detection rate, adherence to a 6-min withdrawal rule, mean number of polyps detected per colonoscope, and complications were collected and compared between the two groups.
RESULTS: In total, out of 25,749 colonoscopies that were performed, 14,168 (55.0%) were performed by Consultants. Consultants achieved a better caecum intubation rate compared with residents (96.0% vs 94.9%, p < 0.001), and were more compliant to the 6-min withdrawal rule (74.7% vs 68.6%, p < 0.001). There were, however, no statistically significant differences in the adenoma detection rate (33.5% vs 34.5%, p = 0.098). Bleeding was a rare complication that was encountered more frequently in colonoscopies performed by consultants than for residents (0.002% vs 0.00008%, p < 0.001). There were only three (%) perforations in the entire series, and all were from colonoscopies performed by Consultants.
CONCLUSION: Given the proper training, residents are able to perform colonoscopy with the same level of competence as consultants. Whilst colonoscopic related complications are often tied to the difficulty of the procedures, the adherence to the 6-min withdrawal rule must be reinforced and continually educated to both residents and consultants.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Colonoscopy; Quality; Residency

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28812156     DOI: 10.1007/s00464-017-5818-0

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Surg Endosc        ISSN: 0930-2794            Impact factor:   4.584


  20 in total

1.  Senior Surgical Resident Confidence in Performing Flexible Endoscopy: What Can We Do Differently?

Authors:  Annabelle L Fonseca; Vikram Reddy; Peter S Yoo; Richard J Gusberg; Walter E Longo
Journal:  J Surg Educ       Date:  2015-10-31       Impact factor: 2.891

2.  Quality indicators for colonoscopy.

Authors:  Douglas K Rex; John L Petrini; Todd H Baron; Amitabh Chak; Jonathan Cohen; Stephen E Deal; Brenda Hoffman; Brian C Jacobson; Klaus Mergener; Bret T Petersen; Michael A Safdi; Douglas O Faigel; Irving M Pike
Journal:  Am J Gastroenterol       Date:  2006-04       Impact factor: 10.864

3.  Integrated flexible endoscopy training during surgical residency.

Authors:  Mario P Morales; Gregory J Mancini; Brent W Miedema; Nitin J Rangnekar; Debra G Koivunen; Bruce J Ramshaw; W Stephen Eubanks; Hugh E Stephenson
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2008-02-23       Impact factor: 4.584

4.  Evaluation of endoscopy training in a general surgery residency.

Authors:  G M Larson; R J Mullins; T J Wieman; H C Polk
Journal:  Am Surg       Date:  1988-02       Impact factor: 0.688

5.  ASGE's assessment of competency in endoscopy evaluation tools for colonoscopy and EGD.

Authors:  Gerald M Fried; Jeffrey M Marks; John D Mellinger; Thadeus L Trus; Melina C Vassiliou; Brian J Dunkin
Journal:  Gastrointest Endosc       Date:  2014-08       Impact factor: 9.427

Review 6.  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

7.  Adenoma miss rates associated with a 3-minute versus 6-minute colonoscopy withdrawal time: a prospective, randomized trial.

Authors:  Sheila Kumar; Nirav Thosani; Uri Ladabaum; Shai Friedland; Ann M Chen; Rajan Kochar; Subhas Banerjee
Journal:  Gastrointest Endosc       Date:  2016-12-06       Impact factor: 9.427

8.  Efficacy of segmental re-examination of proximal colon for adenoma detection during colonoscopy: a randomized controlled trial.

Authors:  Chuan-Guo Guo; Feifei Zhang; Rui Ji; Yueyue Li; Lixiang Li; Xiu-Li Zuo; Yan-Qing Li
Journal:  Endoscopy       Date:  2017-01-27       Impact factor: 10.093

9.  Colonoscopy training in gastroenterology fellowships: determining competence.

Authors:  Bret J Spier; Mark Benson; Patrick R Pfau; Gregory Nelligan; Michael R Lucey; Eric A Gaumnitz
Journal:  Gastrointest Endosc       Date:  2009-07-31       Impact factor: 9.427

10.  Population-Based Colonoscopy Screening for Colorectal Cancer: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Authors:  Michael Bretthauer; Michal F Kaminski; Magnus Løberg; Ann G Zauber; Jaroslaw Regula; Ernst J Kuipers; Miguel A Hernán; Eleanor McFadden; Annike Sunde; Mette Kalager; Evelien Dekker; Iris Lansdorp-Vogelaar; Kjetil Garborg; Maciej Rupinski; Manon C W Spaander; Marek Bugajski; Ole Høie; Tryggvi Stefansson; Geir Hoff; Hans-Olov Adami
Journal:  JAMA Intern Med       Date:  2016-07-01       Impact factor: 21.873

View more
  1 in total

1.  Real-time artificial intelligence (AI)-aided endoscopy improves adenoma detection rates even in experienced endoscopists: a cohort study in Singapore.

Authors:  Frederick H Koh; Jasmine Ladlad; Eng-Kiong Teo; Cui-Li Lin; Fung-Joon Foo
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2022-07-26       Impact factor: 3.453

  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.