A new composite measure of colonoscopy: the Performance Indicator of Colonic Intubation (PICI)

Abstract Background and study aim Cecal intubation rate (CIR) is an established performance indicator of colonoscopy. In some patients, cecal intubation with acceptable tolerance is only achieved with additional sedation. This study proposes a composite Performance Indicator of Colonic Intubation (PICI), which combines CIR, comfort, and sedation. Methods Data from 20 085 colonoscopies reported in the 2011 UK national audit were analyzed. PICI was defined as the percentage of procedures achieving cecal intubation with median dose (2 mg) of midazolam or less, and nurse-assessed comfort score of 1 – 3/5. Multivariate logistic regression analysis evaluated possible associations between PICI and patient, unit, colonoscopist, and diagnostic factors. Results PICI was achieved in 54.1 % of procedures. PICI identified factors affecting performance more frequently than single measures such as CIR and polyp detection, or CIR + comfort alone. Older age, male sex, adequate bowel preparation, and a positive fecal occult blood test as indication were associated with a higher PICI. Unit accreditation, the presence of magnetic imagers in the unit, greater annual volume, fewer years’ experience, and higher training/trainer status were associated with higher PICI rates. Procedures in which PICI was achieved were associated with significantly higher polyp detection rates than when PICI was not achieved. Conclusions PICI provides a simpler picture of performance of colonoscopic intubation than separate measures of CIR, comfort, and sedation. It is associated with more factors that are amenable to change that might improve performance and with higher likelihood of polyp detection. It is proposed that PICI becomes the key performance indicator for intubation of the colon in colonoscopy quality improvement initiatives.</jats:p

Development and implementation of the Structured Training Trainer Assessment Report (STTAR) in the English National Training Programme for laparoscopic colorectal surgery

Background: There is a lack of educational tools available for surgical teaching critique, particularly for advanced laparoscopic surgery. The aim was to develop and implement a tool that assesses training quality and structures feedback for trainers in the English National Training Programme for laparoscopic colorectal surgery. Methods: Semi-structured interviews were performed and analysed, and items were extracted. Through the Delphi process, essential items pertaining to desirable trainer characteristics, training structure and feedback were determined. An assessment tool (Structured Training Trainer Assessment Report—STTAR) was developed and tested for feasibility, acceptability and educational impact. Results: Interview transcripts (29 surgical trainers, 10 trainees, four educationalists) were analysed, and item lists created and distributed for consensus opinion (11 trainers and seven trainees). The STTAR consisted of 64 factors, and its web-based version, the mini-STTAR, included 21 factors that were categorised into four groups (training structure, training behaviour, trainer attributes and role modelling) and structured around a training session timeline (beginning, middle and end). The STTAR (six trainers, 48 different assessments) demonstrated good internal consistency (α = 0.88) and inter-rater reliability (ICC = 0.75). The mini-STTAR demonstrated good inter-item reliability (α = 0.79) and intra-observer reliability on comparison of 85 different trainer/trainee combinations (r = 0.701, p = <0.001). Both were found to be feasible and acceptable. The educational report for trainers was found to be useful (4.4 out of 5). Conclusions: An assessment tool that evaluates training quality was developed and shown to be reliable, acceptable and of educational value. It has been successfully implemented into the English National Training Programme for laparoscopic colorectal surgery

Candidate Proteins, Metabolites and Transcripts in the Biomarkers for Spinal Muscular Atrophy (BforSMA) Clinical Study

Spinal Muscular Atrophy (SMA) is a neurodegenerative motor neuron disorder resulting from a homozygous mutation of the survival of motor neuron 1 (SMN1) gene. The gene product, SMN protein, functions in RNA biosynthesis in all tissues. In humans, a nearly identical gene, SMN2, rescues an otherwise lethal phenotype by producing a small amount of full-length SMN protein. SMN2 copy number inversely correlates with disease severity. Identifying other novel biomarkers could inform clinical trial design and identify novel therapeutic targets.To identify novel candidate biomarkers associated with disease severity in SMA using unbiased proteomic, metabolomic and transcriptomic approaches.A cross-sectional single evaluation was performed in 108 children with genetically confirmed SMA, aged 2-12 years, manifesting a broad range of disease severity and selected to distinguish factors associated with SMA type and present functional ability independent of age. Blood and urine specimens from these and 22 age-matched healthy controls were interrogated using proteomic, metabolomic and transcriptomic discovery platforms. Analyte associations were evaluated against a primary measure of disease severity, the Modified Hammersmith Functional Motor Scale (MHFMS) and to a number of secondary clinical measures.A total of 200 candidate biomarkers correlate with MHFMS scores: 97 plasma proteins, 59 plasma metabolites (9 amino acids, 10 free fatty acids, 12 lipids and 28 GC/MS metabolites) and 44 urine metabolites. No transcripts correlated with MHFMS.In this cross-sectional study, "BforSMA" (Biomarkers for SMA), candidate protein and metabolite markers were identified. No transcript biomarker candidates were identified. Additional mining of this rich dataset may yield important insights into relevant SMA-related pathophysiology and biological network associations. Additional prospective studies are needed to confirm these findings, demonstrate sensitivity to change with disease progression, and assess potential impact on clinical trial design.Clinicaltrials.gov NCT00756821