Background: Endoscopy within 24 h of admission (early endoscopy) is a quality standard in acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding (AUGIB). We aimed to audit time to endoscopy outcomes and identify factors affecting delayed endoscopy (>24 h of admission). Methods: This prospective multicentre audit enrolled patients admitted with AUGIB who underwent inpatient endoscopy between November and December 2017. Analyses were performed to identify factors associated with delayed endoscopy, and to compare patient outcomes, including length of stay and mortality rates, between early and delayed endoscopy groups. Results: Across 348 patients from 20 centres, the median time to endoscopy was 21.2 h (IQR 12.0-35.7), comprising median admission to referral and referral to endoscopy times of 8.1 h (IQR 3.7-18.1) and 6.7 h (IQR 3.0-23.1), respectively. Early endoscopy was achieved in 58.9%, although this varied by centre (range: 31.0-87.5%, p ¼ 0.002). On multivariable analysis, lower Glasgow-Blatchford score, delayed referral, admissions between 7:00 and 19:00 hours or via the emergency department were independent predictors of delayed endoscopy. Early endoscopy was associated with reduced length of stay (median difference 1 d; p ¼ 0.004), but not 30-d mortality (p ¼ 0.344). Conclusions: The majority of centres did not meet national standards for time to endoscopy. Strategic initiatives involving acute care services may be necessary to improve this outcome.

Background Bowel preparation for colonoscopy is often poorly tolerated due to poor palatability and adverse effects. This can negatively impact on the patient experience and on the quality of bowel preparation. This systematic review and meta-analysis was carried out to assess whether adjuncts to bowel preparation affected palatability, tolerability and quality of bowel preparation (bowel cleanliness). Methods A systematic search strategy was conducted on PubMed, MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews to identify studies evaluating adjunct use for colonoscopic bowel preparation. Studies comparing different regimens and volumes were excluded. Specific outcomes studied included palatability (taste), willingness to repeat bowel preparation, gastrointestinal adverse events and the quality of bowel preparation. Data across studies were pooled using a random-effects model and heterogeneity assessed using I2-statistics. Results Of 467 studies screened, six were included for analysis (all single-blind randomised trials; n = 1187 patients). Adjuncts comprised citrus reticulata peel, orange juice, menthol candy drops, simethicone, Coke Zero and sugar-free chewing gum. Overall, adjunct use was associated with improved palatability (mean difference 0.62, 95% confidence interval 0.29–0.96, p < 0.001) on a scale of 0–5, acceptability of taste (odds ratio 2.75, 95% confidence interval: 1.52–4.95, p < 0.001) and willingness to repeat bowel preparation (odds ratio 2.92, 95% confidence interval: 1.97–4.35, p < 0.001). Patients in the adjunct group reported lower rates of bloating (odds ratio 0.48, 95% confidence interval: 0.29–0.77, p = 0.003) and vomiting (odds ratio 0.47, 95% confidence interval 0.27–0.81, p = 0.007), but no difference in nausea ( p = 0.10) or abdominal pain ( p = 0.62). Adjunct use resulted in superior bowel cleanliness (odds ratio 2.52, 95% confidence interval: 1.31–4.85, p = 0.006). Heterogeneity varied across outcomes, ranging from 0% (vomiting) to 81% (palatability), without evidence of publication bias. The overall quality of evidence was rated moderate. Conclusion In this meta-analysis, the use of adjuncts was associated with better palatability, less vomiting and bloating, willingness to repeat bowel preparation and superior quality of bowel preparation. The addition of adjuncts to bowel preparation may improve outcomes of colonoscopy and the overall patient experience.

No abstract

Background Missing upper gastrointestinal cancer (UGIC) at endoscopy may prevent curative treatment. We have developed a root cause analysis system for potentially missed UGICs at endoscopy (post-endoscopy UGIC [PEUGIC]) to establish the most plausible explanations. Methods The electronic records of patients with UGIC at two National Health Service providers were examined. PEUGICs were defined as UGICs diagnosed 6–36 months after an endoscopy that did not diagnose cancer. An algorithm based on the World Endoscopy Organization post-colonoscopy colorectal cancer algorithm was developed to categorize and identify potentially avoidable PEUGICs. Results Of 1327 UGICs studied, 89 (6.7 %) were PEUGICs (patient median [IQR] age at endoscopy 73.5 (63.5–81.0); 60.7 % men). Of the PEUGICs, 40 % were diagnosed in patients with Barrett’s esophagus. PEUGICs were categorized as: A – lesion detected, adequate assessment and decision-making, but PEUGIC occurred (16.9 %); B – lesion detected, inadequate assessment or decision-making (34.8 %); C – possible missed lesion, endoscopy and decision-making adequate (8.9 %); D – possible missed lesion, endoscopy or decision-making inadequate (33.7 %); E – deviated from management pathway but appropriate (5.6 %); F – deviated inappropriately from management pathway (3.4 %). The majority of PEUGICs (71 %) were potentially avoidable and in 45 % the cancer outcome could have been different if it had been diagnosed on the initial endoscopy. There was a negative correlation between endoscopists’ mean annual number of endoscopies and the technically attributable PEUGIC rate (correlation coefficient −0.57; P = 0.004). Conclusion Missed opportunities to avoid PEUGIC were identified in 71 % of cases. Root cause analysis can standardize future investigation of PEUGIC and guide quality improvement efforts.

While total knee arthroplasty has demonstrated clinical success, final bone cut and final component alignment can be critical for achieving a desired overall limb alignment. This cadaver study investigated whether robotic-arm assisted total knee arthroplasty (RATKA) allows for accurate bone cuts and component position to plan, compared to manual technique. Six cadaveric specimens (12 knees) were prepared by an experienced user of manual total knee arthroplasty (MTKA), who was inexperienced in RATKA. For each cadaveric pair, a RATKA was prepared on the right leg and a MTKA was prepared on the left leg. Final bone cuts and final component position to plan were measured relative to fiducials, and medians and standard deviations were compared. Accuracy to plan was defined by the median values of the absolute deviation from plan. Standard deviation was used to describe the precision to plan. Two-Variance assessment using Levene's test was performed to evaluate for differences between precision of the two techniques.When comparing all six matched pairs, RATKA bone cuts were as or more accurate to plan than the MTKA control for 11/12 bone cut measurements. Similarly, RATKA bone cuts were as or more precise to plan than the MTKA control on all femoral bone cuts. Additionally, RATKA final component positions were as or more accurate to plan than the MTKA control for all measurements. Similarly, RATKA final component positions were as or more precise to plan than MTKA for all femoral implant positions, as well as the tibial varus/valgus implant position. A comparison of the standard deviations for the last three RATKA and MTKA matched pairs showed that RATKA was In general, RATKA demonstrated greater accuracy and precision of bone cuts and component placement to plan, respectively, compared to MTKA in this cadaveric study. For further confirmation, RATKA accuracy of component placement should be investigated in a clinical setting.