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

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.

• References

• 1 Ferlay J, Autier P, Boniol M et al Estimates of the cancer incidence and mortality in Europe in 2006. Ann Oncol 2007; 18: 581-592
• 2 Fearon ER, Vogelstein B. A genetic model for colorectal tumorigenesis. Cell 1990; 61: 759-767
• 3 Winawer SJ, Zauber AG, Ho MN et al. The National Polyp Study Workgroup. Prevention of colorectal cancer by colonoscopic polypectomy. N Engl J Med 1993; 329: 1977-1981
• 4 Dove-Edwin I, Sasieni P, Adams J, Thomas HJ. Prevention of colorectal cancer by colonoscopic surveillance in individuals with a family history of colorectal cancer: 16 year, prospective, follow-up study. BMJ 2005; 331: 1047
• 5 Rex DK, Petrini JL, Baron TH et al Quality indicators for colonoscopy. Am J Gastroenterol 2006; 101: 873-885
• 6 Rex DK, Bond JH, Winawer S et al Quality in the technical performance of colonoscopy and the continuous quality improvement process for colonoscopy: recommendations of the U.S. Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer Am J Gastroenterol 2002; 97: 1296-1308
• 7 Chilton A, Rutter M. Quality Assurance Guidelines for Colonoscopy. NHS Cancer Screening Programmes 2011 (NHS BCSP Publication No 6). Available at: http://www.cancerscreening.nhs.uk/bowel/publications/nhsbcsp06.pdf Accessed 4 Apr 2011
• 8 Faigel DO, Pike IM, Baron TH et al Quality indicators for gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures: an introduction. Am J Gastroenterol 2006; 101: 866-872
• 9 Lieberman D, Nadel M, Smith RA et al Standardized colonoscopy reporting and data system: report of the Quality Assurance Task Group of the National. Colorectal Cancer Roundtable. Gastrointest Endosc 2007; 65: 757-766
• 10 Mitchell RM, McCallion K, Gardiner KR et al Successful colonoscopy; completion rates and reasons for incompletion. Ulster Med J 2002; 71: 34-37
• 11 Cotton PB, Connor P, McGee D et al Colonoscopy: practice variation among 69 hospital-based endoscopists. Gastrointest Endosc 2003; 57: 352-357
• 12 Bowles CJ, Leicester R, Romaya C et al A prospective study of colonoscopy practice in the UK today: are we adequately prepared for national colorectal cancer screening tomorrow?. Gut 2004; 53: 277-283
• 13 Harris JK, Vader JP, Wietlisbach V et al Variations in colonoscopy practice in Europe: a multicentre descriptive study (EPAGE). Scand J Gastroenterol 2007; 42: 126-134
• 14 Taylor KM, Arajs K, Rouse T, Harris AW. Prospective audit of colonoscopy quality in Kent and Medway, UK. Endoscopy 2008; 40: 291-295
• 15 Radaelli F, Meucci G, Minoli G Italian Association of Hospital Gastroenterologists (AIGO) Colonoscopy practice in Italy: a prospective survey on behalf of the Italian Association of Hospital Gastroenterologists. Dig Liver Dis 2008; 40: 897-904
• 16 Barclay RL, Vicari JJ, Doughty AS et al Colonoscopic withdrawal times and adenoma detection during screening colonoscopy. N Engl J Med 2006; 355: 2533-2541
• 17 Chen SC, Rex DK. Endoscopist can be more powerful than age and male gender in predicting adenoma detection at colonoscopy. Am J Gastroenterol 2007; 102: 856-861
• 18 Millan MS, Gross P, Manilich E, Church JM. Adenoma detection rate: the real indicator of quality in colonoscopy. Dis Colon Rectum 2008; 51: 1217-1220
• 19 Green J. QA of Individuals, Working Group. Available at: http://www.thejag.org.uk/downloads%5CNewsletters%5CJAG%20QA%20Individuals%20full%20article%20for%20website%2031.08.10.pdf (Accessed 04 Apr 2011)
• 20 Simmons DT, Harewood GC, Baron TH et al Impact of endoscopist withdrawal speed on polyp yield: implications for optimal colonoscopy withdrawal time. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2006; 24: 965-971
• 21 Barclay RL, Vicari JJ, Greenlaw RL. Effect of a time-dependent colonoscopic withdrawal protocol on adenoma detection during screening colonoscopy. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2008; 6: 1091-1098
• 22 Sawhney MS, Cury MS, Neeman N et al Effect of institution-wide policy of colonoscopy withdrawal time > or = 7 minutes on polyp detection. Gastroenterology 2008; 135: 1892-1898
• 23 Thuraisingam AI, Brown JL, Anderson JT. What are the sensitivity and specificity of endoscopic photographs in determining completion of colonoscopy? Results from an online questionnaire. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2008; 20: 567-571
• 24 Rex DK. Still photography versus videotaping for documentation of cecal intubation: a prospective study. Gastrointest Endosc 2000; 51: 451-459
• 25 Marshall JB, Brown DN. Photodocumentation of total colonoscopy: how successful are endoscopists? Do reviewers agree?. Gastrointest Endosc 1996; 44: 243-248
• 26 Chak A, Cooper GS, Blades EW et al Prospective assessment of colonoscopic intubation skills in trainees. Gastrointest Endosc 1996; 44: 54-57
• 27 Tassios PS, Ladas SD, Grammenos I et al Acquisition of competence in colonoscopy: the learning curve of trainees. Endoscopy 1999; 31: 702-706
• 28 Morris AI. Guidelines for the training, appraisal and assessment of trainees in gastrointestinal endoscopy. Joint Advisory Group, Royal College of Physicians of the UK. British Society of Gastroenterology. 2004 Available at: www.bsg.org.uk/pdf_word_docs/jag_recommendations_2004.pdf (Accessed 19 Aug 2009)
• 29 Faigel DO, Baron TH, Lewis B et al Ensuring competence in endoscopy – prepared by the ASGE Taskforce on Ensuring Competence in Endoscopy. Oak Brook, Illionois: American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy; 2006: 1-31
• 30 Lee SH, Chung IK, Kim SJ et al An adequate level of training for technical competence in screening and diagnostic colonoscopy: a prospective multicenter evaluation of the learning curve. Gastrointest Endosc 2008; 67: 683-689
• 31 Spier BJ, Benson M, Pfau PR et al Colonoscopy training in gastroenterology fellowships: determining competence. Gastrointest Endosc 2010; 71: 319-324
• 32 Asfaha S, Alqahtani S, Hilsden RJ et al Assessment of endoscopic training of general surgery residents in a North American health region. Gastrointest Endosc 2008; 68: 1056-1062