Impact of the National Endoscopy Database (NED) on colonoscopy withdrawal time: a tertiary centre experience

Objective Colonoscopy withdrawal time (CWT) is a key performance indicator affecting polyp detection rate (PDR) and adenoma detection rate (ADR). However, studies have shown wide variation in CWT and ADR between different endoscopists. The National Endoscopy Database (NED) was implemented to enable quality assurance in all endoscopy units across the UK and also to reduce variation in practice. We aimed to assess whether CWT changed since the introduction of NED and whether CWT affected PDR. Methods We used NED to retrospectively collect data regarding CWT and PDR of 25 endoscopists who performed (n=4459 colonoscopies) in the four quarters of 2019. We then compared this data to their performance in 2016, before using NED (n=4324 colonoscopies). Results Mean CWT increased from 7.66 min in 2016 to 9.25 min in 2019 (p=0.0001). Mean PDR in the two periods was 29.9% and 28.3% (p=0.64). 72% of endoscopists (18/25) had CWT>6 min in 2016 versus 100% (25/25) in 2019, the longer CWT in 2019 positively correlated with the PDR (r=0.50, p=0.01). Gastroenterology consultants and trainee endoscopists had longer CWT compared with colorectal surgeons both before and after using NED. Conclusion NED usage increased withdrawal times in colonoscopy. Longer withdrawal times were associated with higher PDR. A national colonoscopy audit using data from NED is required to evaluate whether wide variations in practice across endoscopy units in the UK still exist and to ensure minimum colonoscopy quality standards are achieved

Diagnostic yield from symptomatic lower gastrointestinal endoscopy in the UK: A British Society of Gastroenterology analysis using data from the National Endoscopy Database

\ua9 2024 The Authors. Alimentary Pharmacology & Therapeutics published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.Background: The value of lower gastrointestinal endoscopy (LGIE; colonoscopy or sigmoidoscopy) relates to its ability to detect clinically relevant findings, predominantly cancers, preneoplastic polyps or inflammatory bowel disease. There are concerns that many LGIEs are performed on low-risk patients with limited benefit. Aims: To determine the diagnostic outcomes of LGIE for common symptoms. Methods: We performed a cross-sectional study of diagnostic LGIE between March 2019 and February 2020 using the UK National Endoscopy Database. We used mixed-effects logistic regression models, incorporating random (endoscopist) and fixed (symptoms, patient age, and sex) effects upon two dependent variables (large polyp [≥10 mm] and cancer diagnosis). Adjusted positive predictive values (aPPVs) were calculated. Results: We analysed 384,510 LGIEs; 33.2% were performed on patients aged under 50 and 53.6% on women. Regarding colonoscopies, the unadjusted PPV for cancer was 1.5% (95% CI: 1.4–1.5); higher for men than women (1.9% vs. 1.1%, p < 0.01). The PPV for large polyps was 3.2% (95% CI: 3.1–3.2). The highest colonoscopy cancer aPPVs were in the over 50s (1.9%) and in those with rectal bleeding (2.5%) or anaemia (2.1%). Cancer aPPVs for other symptoms were <1% despite representing 54.3% of activity. In patients under 50, aPPVs were 0.4% for cancer and 1.6% for large polyps. Results were similar for sigmoidoscopy. Conclusions: Most colonoscopies were performed on patients with low-risk symptoms, where cancer risk was similar to the general population. Cancer and large polyp yield was highest in elderly patients with rectal bleeding or anaemia, although still fell short of FIT-based screening yields

Is it time we split bowel preparation for all colonoscopies? Outcomes from a national survey of bowel preparation practice in the UK

Introduction: Adequate bowel preparation is a prerequisite for effective colonoscopy. Split bowel preparation results in optimal cleansing. This study assessed the bowel preparation regimes advised by endoscopy units across the UK, and correlated the differences with outcomes. Methods: Trusts in the UK were surveyed, with data requested between January 2018 and January 2019, including: the type and timing of preparation, pre-endoscopy diet, adequacy rates and polyp detection. Trusts were grouped according to the timing of bowel preparation. χ2 test was used to assess for differences in bowel preparation adequacy. Results: Moviprep was the first line bowel preparation in 79% of trusts. Only 7% of trusts advised splitting bowel preparation for all procedures, however, 91% used split bowel preparation for afternoon procedures. Trusts that split preparation for all procedures had an inadequacy rate of 6.7%, compared with 8.5% (p<0.001) for those that split preparation for PM procedures alone and 9.5% (p<0.001) for those that provided day before preparation for all procedures. Morning procedures with day-before preparation had a higher rate of inadequate cleansing than afternoon procedures that received split preparation (7.7% vs 6.5 %, p<0.001). The polyp detection rate for procedures with adequate preparation was 37.1%, compared with 26.4% for those that were inadequate. Conclusion: Most trusts in the UK do not provide instructions optimising the timing of bowel preparation prior to colonoscopy. This correlated with an increased rate of inadequate cleansing. Splitting bowel preparation is likely to reduce the impacts of poor cleansing: missed lesions, repeat colonoscopies and significant costs

Diagnostic yield of colonoscopy in patients with symptoms compatible with Rome IV functional bowel disorders

Background There is little data on the diagnostic yield of colonoscopy in patients with symptoms compatible with functional bowel disorders (FBDs). Previous studies have only focused on diagnostic outcomes of colonoscopy in those with suspected irritable bowel syndrome using historic Rome I-III criteria, whilst having partially assessed for alarm features and shown markedly conflicting results. There is also no colonoscopy outcome data for other FBDs, such as functional constipation or functional diarrhea. Aims Using the contemporaneous Rome IV criteria we determined the diagnostic yield of colonoscopy in patients with symptoms compatible with a FBD, stratified diligently according to the presence or absence of alarm features Methods Basic demographics, alarm features, and bowel symptoms using the Rome IV diagnostic questionnaire were collected prospectively from adults attending out-patient colonoscopy in 2019. Endoscopists were blinded to the questionnaire data. Organic disease was defined as the presence of inflammatory bowel disease, colorectal cancer, or microscopic colitis. Results 646 patients fulfilled symptom-based criteria for the following Rome IV FBDs: IBS (56%), functional diarrhea (27%) and functional constipation (17%). Almost all had alarm features (98%). The combined prevalence of organic disease was 12%, being lowest for functional constipation and IBS-constipation (∼6% each), followed by IBS-mixed (∼9%), and highest amongst functional diarrhea and IBS-diarrhea (∼17% each); p=0.005. The increased prevalence of organic disease in diarrheal versus constipation disorders was accounted for by microscopic colitis (5.7% vs. 0%, p<0.001) but not inflammatory bowel disease (7.2% vs. 4.0%, p=0.2) or colorectal cancer (4.2% vs. 2.3%, p=0.2). However, one-in-four chronic diarrhea patients - conceivably at risk for microscopic colitis - did not have colonic biopsies taken. Finally, only 11 of 646 (2%) patients were without alarm features, in whom colonoscopy was normal. Conclusion Most patients with symptoms of FBDs who are referred for colonoscopy have alarm features. The presence of organic disease is significantly higher in diarrheal versus constipation disorders, with microscopic colitis largely accounting for the difference whilst also being a missed diagnostic opportunity. In those patients without alarm features, the diagnostic yield of colonoscopy was nil

Increased psychological distress and somatization in patients with irritable bowel syndrome compared with functional diarrhea or functional constipation, based on Rome IV criteria

Background The Rome IV criteria for disorders of gut‐brain interaction define irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) as a functional bowel disorder associated with frequent abdominal pain of at least 1 day per week. In contrast, functional diarrhea (FD) and functional constipation (FC) are relatively painless. We compared differences in mood and somatization between Rome IV IBS and FC/FD. Methods A total of 567 patients with Rome IV defined IBS or FD/FC completed a baseline questionnaire on demographics, abdominal pain frequency, mood (hospital anxiety and depression scale, HADS), and somatization (patient health questionnaire, PHQ‐12). The primary analysis compared differences in mood and somatization between IBS and FC/FD, and the relative influence of abdominal pain frequency on these extra‐intestinal symptoms. The secondary analysis evaluated differences across individual IBS subtypes, and also between FC and FD. Key Results Patients with IBS—in comparison to those with FC/FD—had significantly higher mean PHQ‐12 somatization scores (9.1 vs. 5.4), more somatic symptoms (6.0 vs. 4.3), abnormally high somatization levels (16% vs. 3%), higher HADS score (15.0 vs. 11.7), and clinically abnormal levels of anxiety (38% vs. 20%) and depression (17% vs. 10%). Increasing abdominal pain frequency correlated positively with PHQ‐12, number of somatic symptoms, and HADS; p < 0.001. No differences in mood and somatization scores were seen between individual IBS subtypes, and nor between FC and FD. Conclusion & Inferences Based on the Rome IV criteria, IBS is associated with increased levels of psychological distress and somatization compared with FD or FC. Patients reporting frequent abdominal pain should be comprehensively screened for psychosomatic disorders, with psychological therapies considered early in the disease course

Does reverse mentoring work in the NHS: a feasibility study of clinicians in practice

Objective To assess the risks and benefits of reverse mentoring of consultants by junior doctors. Design A feasibility study divided into two phases: first a semistructured interview where performance of participating consultants was assessed by junior doctors and then a second phase allowing for feedback to be given on a one-to-one basis. Data collected through questionnaires with free text questions and Likert scores. Setting Tertiary teaching hospital in the UK. Participants Six junior doctors (66.6% male, age range 31–40 years) and five consultants (80% male, age range 35–65 years and consultants for 5–20 years). Intervention Reverse mentoring session. Main outcome measure The concerns and/or benefits of the process of reverse mentoring. Confidence was assessed in 7 domains: clinical practice, approach to juniors, approachability, use of technology, time management, strengths and areas for improvement using Likert scales giving a total out of 35. Results The most common concerns cited were overcoming the hierarchical difference and a selection bias in both mentors and mentees. However, no participant experienced this hierarchical difference through the reverse mentoring process and no relationships were negatively affected. Mentors became more confident in feeding back to seniors (23 vs 29 out of 35, p=0.04) most evident in clinical practice and areas to improve (3 vs 4 out of 5, p=0.041 and 3 vs 5 out of 5, p=0.041, respectively). Conclusion We present the first study of reverse mentoring in an NHS clinical setting. Initial concerns with regard to damaged relationships and hierarchical gradients were not experienced and all participants perceived that they benefited from the process. Reverse mentoring can play a role in engaging and training future leaders at junior stages and provide a means for consultants to receive valuable feedback from junior colleagues

Endoscopy in patients on antiplatelet or anticoagulant therapy: British Society of Gastroenterology (BSG) and European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) guideline update

This is a collaboration between the British Society of Gastroenterology (BSG) and the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE), and is a scheduled update of their 2016 guideline on endoscopy in patients on antiplatelet or anticoagulant therapy. The guideline development committee included representatives from the British Society of Haematology, the British Cardiovascular Intervention Society, and two patient representatives from the charities Anticoagulation UK and Thrombosis UK, as well as gastroenterologists. The process conformed to AGREE II principles and the quality of evidence and strength of recommendations were derived using GRADE methodology. Prior to submission for publication, consultation was made with all member societies of ESGE, including BSG. Evidence-based revisions have been made to the risk categories for endoscopic procedures, and to the categories for risks of thrombosis. In particular a more detailed risk analysis for atrial fibrillation has been employed, and the recommendations for direct oral anticoagulants have been strengthened in light of trial data published since the previous version. A section has been added on the management of patients presenting with acute GI haemorrhage. Important patient considerations are highlighted. Recommendations are based on the risk balance between thrombosis and haemorrhage in given situations.Cellular mechanisms in basic and clinical gastroenterology and hepatolog

Endoscopy in patients on antiplatelet or anticoagulant therapy: British Society of Gastroenterology (BSG) and European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) guideline update

This is a collaboration between the British Society of Gastroenterology (BSG) and the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE), and is a scheduled update of their 2016 guideline on endoscopy in patients on antiplatelet or anticoagulant therapy. The guideline development committee included representatives from the British Society of Haematology, the British Cardiovascular Intervention Society, and two patient representatives from the charities Anticoagulation UK and Thrombosis UK, as well as gastroenterologists. The process conformed to AGREE II principles, and the quality of evidence and strength of recommendations were derived using GRADE methodology. Prior to submission for publication, consultation was made with all member societies of ESGE, including BSG. Evidence-based revisions have been made to the risk categories for endoscopic procedures, and to the categories for risks of thrombosis. In particular a more detailed risk analysis for atrial fibrillation has been employed, and the recommendations for direct oral anticoagulants have been strengthened in light of trial data published since the previous version. A section has been added on the management of patients presenting with acute GI haemorrhage. Important patient considerations are highlighted. Recommendations are based on the risk balance between thrombosis and haemorrhage in given situations.Cellular mechanisms in basic and clinical gastroenterology and hepatolog

What is the role of out of programme clinical fellowships in the era of Shape of Training? A single-centre cohort study

Background: The updated Shape of Training curriculum has shortened the duration of specialty training. We present the potential role of out of programme clinical fellowships. Method: An electronic online survey was sent to all current fellows to understand their experiences, training opportunities and motivations. Data were collected on fellows’ endoscopic experiences and publications using PubMed for all previous doctors who have completed the Sheffield Fellowship Programme. Results: Since 2004, 39 doctors have completed the Sheffield Fellowship. Endoscopic experience: current fellows completed a median average of 350 (IQR 150–500) gastroscopies and 150 (IQR 106–251) colonoscopies per year. Fellows with special interests completed either 428 hepato-pancreato-biliary procedures or 70 endoscopic mucosal resections per year. Medline publications: Median average 9 publications(IQR 4–17). They have also received multiple national or international awards and 91% achieved a doctoral degree. The seven current fellows in the new Shape of Training era (57% male, 29% Caucasian, aged 31–40 years) report high levels of enjoyment due to their research projects, supervisory teams and social aspects. The most cited reasons for undertaking the fellowship were to develop a subspecialty interest, take time off the on-call rota and develop endoscopic skills. The most reported drawback was a reduced income. All current fellows feel that the fellowship has enhanced their clinical confidence and prepared them to become consultants. Conclusion: Out of programme clinical fellowships offer the opportunity to develop the required training competencies, subspecialty expertise and research skills in a supportive environment

Iliopsoas abscesses

Iliopsoas abscess is a relatively uncommon condition that can present with vague clinical features. Its insidious onset and occult characteristics can cause diagnostic delays, resulting in high mortality and morbidity. The epidemiology, aetiology, clinical features, and management of iliopsoas abscess are discussed