Colonoscopy should be delivered by endoscopists performing high quality procedures. The British Society of Gastroenterology, the UK Joint Advisory Group on GI Endoscopy, and the Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland have developed quality assurance measures and key performance indicators for the delivery of colonoscopy within the UK. This document sets minimal standards for delivery of procedures along with aspirational targets that all endoscopists should aim for.
CB1 receptors are expressed in normal human colon and colonic epithelium is responsive biochemically and functionally to cannabinoids. Increased epithelial CB2-receptor expression in human inflammatory bowel disease tissue implies an immunomodulatory role that may impact on mucosal immunity.
The Joint Advisory Group on Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (JAG) was initially established in 1994 to standardise endoscopy training across specialties. Over the last two decades, the position of JAG has evolved to meet its current role of quality assuring all aspects of endoscopy in the UK to provide the highest quality, patient-centred care. Drivers such as changes to healthcare agenda, national audits, advances in research and technology and the advent of population-based cancer screening have underpinned this shift in priority. Over this period, JAG has spearheaded various quality assurance initiatives with support from national stakeholders. These have led to the achievement of notable milestones in endoscopy quality assurance, particularly in the three major areas of: (1) endoscopy training, (2) accreditation of endoscopy services (including the Global Rating Scale), and (3) accreditation of screening endoscopists. These developments have changed the landscape of UK practice, serving as a model to promote excellence in endoscopy. This review provides a summary of JAG initiatives and assesses the impact of JAG on training and endoscopy services within the UK and beyond.
Background The endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) direct observation of procedural skills (DOPS) is a 27-item competency assessment tool that was developed to support UK ERCP training. We evaluated validity of ERCP DOPS and competency development during training.
Methods This prospective study analyzed ERCP DOPS performed in the UK between July 2016 and October 2018. Reliability was measured using Cronbach’s alpha, and DOPS scores were benchmarked using the contrasting groups method. The percentage of competent scores was averaged for each item, domain, and overall rating, and stratified by lifetime procedure count to evaluate learning curves. Multivariable analyses were performed to identify predictors of DOPS competence.
Results 818 DOPS (109 trainees, 80 UK centers) were analyzed. Overall Cronbach’s alpha was 0.961. Attaining competency in 87 % of assessed DOPS items provided the optimal competency benchmark. This was achieved in the domain sequence of: pre-procedure, post-procedure management, endoscopic non-technical skills, cannulation & imaging, and execution of selected therapy, and across all items after 200 – 249 procedures (89 %). After 300 procedures, the benchmark was reached for selective cannulation (89 %), but not for stenting (plastic 73 %; metal 70 %), sphincterotomy (80 %), and sphincteroplasty (56 %). On multivariable analysis, lifetime procedure count (P = 0.002), easier case difficulty (P < 0.001), trainee grade (P = 0.03), and higher lifetime DOPS count (P = 0.01) were predictors of DOPS competence.
Conclusion This study provides novel validity, reliability, and learning curve data for ERCP DOPS. Trainees should have a minimum of 300 hands-on ERCP procedures before undertaking summative assessment for independent practice.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.