Search

Introduction\ud The COLO-COHORT study aims to produce a multi-factorial risk prediction model for colorectal neoplasia that will be able to be used to target colonoscopy to those at greatest risk of colorectal neoplasia, ensuring that people are not investigated unnecessarily and maximising the use of limited endoscopy resources. The study will also explore the link between neoplasia and the human gut microbiome. Additionally, the study aims to generate a cohort of colonoscopy patients who are ‘research ready’ through the development of a consent-for-contact platform (C4C), to facilitate a range of CRC prevention studies to be conducted at scale and speed.\ud \ud Methods and Analysis\ud This is a multi-centre observational study involving sites across the UK. Recruitment is over a 6-year period (2019 – 2025). Patients recruited to the study are those attending for colonoscopy. Patients are recruited into two groups, namely; observational Group A (10,000 patients) and C4C Group B (10,000 patients), known as COLO-SPEED (Colorectal Cancer Screening Prevention Endoscopy and Early Diagnosis; https://colospeed.uk).\ud \ud Patients complete a health questionnaire, provide anthropometric measurements and submit biosamples (blood and stool - depending on the part of the study they are recruited into). Patients’ colonoscopy and histology findings are also recorded. Models of factors associated with presence of neoplasia at colonoscopy will be developed using logistic or multinomial regression. For internal validation, model discrimination and calibration will be assessed and bootstrapping and cross-validation approaches used. To enable long-term follow up for outcomes related to CRC and polyps, patients are asked to consent to follow up through data linkage with national databases.\ud \ud Dissemination\ud In keeping with good research practice, following analysis by the study team the study investigators will make the anonymised dataset available to other researchers. The C4C platform will also be accessible to other researchers. The study findings will be submitted for publication in peer reviewed journals and lay summaries will be disseminated to participants and the wider public.

Objectives People who are referred for colonoscopy, following an abnormal colorectal cancer (CRC) screening result, are at increased risk of CRC. Despite this, many individuals decline the procedure. The aim of this study was to investigate why. Methods As little is currently known about non-attendance at follow-up colonoscopy, and follow-up of abnormal screening results is a nurse-led process, we decided to conduct key informant interviews with Specialist Screening Practitioners ([SSPs] nurses working in the English Bowel Cancer Screening Program). Interviews were conducted online. Transcripts were assessed using inductive and deductive coding techniques. Results 21 SSPs participated in an interview. Five main types of barriers and facilitators to colonoscopy were described, namely: Sociocultural, Practical, Psychological, Health-related and COVID-related. Key psychological and sociocultural factors included: ‘Fear of pain and discomfort associated with the procedure’ and ‘Lack of support from family and friends’. Key practical, health-related and COVID-related factors included: ‘Family and work commitments’, ‘Existing health conditions as competing priorities’ and ‘Fear of getting COVID-19 at the hospital'. Conclusions A range of barriers and facilitators to follow-up colonoscopy exist. Future studies conducted with patients are needed to further explore barriers to colonoscopy. Practice implications Strategies to reduce non-attendance should adopt a multifaceted approach.

Purpose of review Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the second most common cause of cancer death worldwide, killing approximately 900,000 people each year. An individual’s risk of developing CRC is multi-factorial with known risk factors including increasing age, male sex, family history of CRC and raised body mass index. Population-based screening programmes for CRC exist in many countries, and in the United Kingdom (UK), screening is performed through the NHS Bowel Cancer Screening Programme (BCSP). Screening programmes offer a population-based approach for those at “average risk”, and do not typically offer enhanced screening for groups at increased risk. In the UK, such patients are managed via non-screening symptomatic services but in a non-systematic way. Recent findings There is growing evidence that conditions such as cystic fibrosis and a history of childhood cancer are associated with higher risk of CRC, and surveillance of these groups is advocated by some organizations; however, national recommendations do not exist in most countries. Summary We review the evidence for screening “high risk” groups not covered within most guidelines and discuss health economic issues requiring consideration acknowledging that the demand on colonoscopy services is already overwhelming.

Colorectal cancer is the second commonest cause of cancer death worldwide. Colonoscopy plays a key role in the control of colorectal cancer and, in that regard, maximizing detection (and removal) of pre-cancerous adenomas at colonoscopy is imperative. GI Genius™ (Medtronic Ltd) is a computer-aided detection system that integrates with existing endoscopy systems and improves adenoma detection during colonoscopy. COLO-DETECT aims to assess the clinical and cost effectiveness of GI Genius™ in UK routine colonoscopy practice.Participants will be recruited from patients attending for colonoscopy at National Health Service sites in England, for clinical symptoms, surveillance or within the national Bowel Cancer Screening Programme. Randomization will involve a 1:1 allocation ratio (GI Genius™-assisted colonoscopy:standard colonoscopy) and will be stratified by age category (60 years, 60-74 years, ≥74 years), sex, hospital site and indication for colonoscopy. Demographic data, procedural data, histology and post-procedure patient experience and quality of life will be recorded. COLO-DETECT is designed and powered to detect clinically meaningful differences in mean adenomas per procedure and adenoma detection rate between GI Genius™-assisted colonoscopy and standard colonoscopy groups. The study will close when 1828 participants have had a complete colonoscopy. An economic evaluation will be conducted from the perspective of the National Health Service. A patient and public representative is contributing to all stages of the trial. Registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04723758) and ISRCTN (10451355). WHAT WILL THIS TRIAL ADD TO THE LITERATURE?: COLO-DETECT will be the first multi-centre randomized controlled trial evaluating GI Genius™ in real world colonoscopy practice and will, uniquely, evaluate both clinical and cost effectiveness.

Population screening and endoscopic surveillance are used widely to prevent the development of and death from colorectal cancer (CRC). However, CRC remains a major cause of cancer mortality and the increasing burden of endoscopic investigations threatens to overwhelm some health services. This Perspective describes the rationale for and approach to improved risk stratification and decision-making for CRC prevention and diagnosis. Limitations of current approaches will be discussed using the UK as an example of the challenges faced by a particular health-care system, followed by discussion of novel risk biomarker utilization. We explore how risk stratification will be advantageous to current health-care providers and users, enabling more efficient use of limited colonoscopy resources. We discuss risk stratification in the setting of population screening as well as the surveillance of high-risk groups and investigation of symptomatic patients. We also address challenges in the development and validation of risk stratification tools and identify key research priorities., Population screening and endoscopic surveillance are widely used for colorectal cancer (CRC) prevention and early diagnosis. This Perspective explores the rationale for and approach to risk stratification for CRC prevention and diagnosis, including the limitations, advantages and future challenges for this approach.

Background Unacceptable variation in colonoscopy quality exists. The Quality Improvement in Colonoscopy (QIC) study in 2011 improved quality by introducing an evidence-based “bundle” of measures into routine colonoscopy practice. The QIC bundle included: minimal cecal withdrawal time of ≥ 6 minutes; hyoscine butylbromide use; supine patient position for transverse colon examination; rectal retroflexion. Colonoscopy quality was measured by adenoma detection rate (ADR). The current study measured whether these effects led to a sustained change in practice 3 years following implementation. Methods This observational study collected data from eight hospital trusts (sites) in the United Kingdom for a 6-month period, 3 years following QIC bundle implementation. Use of the antispasmodic, hyoscine butylbromide, was measured as a marker of bundle uptake. Bundle effectiveness was measured by ADR change. Comparisons were made between data before and immediately after implementation of the bundle. Results 28 615 colonoscopies by 188 colonoscopists were studied. Hyoscine butylbromide use increased from 15.8 % pre-implementation to 47.4 % in the sustainability phase (P Conclusions The introduction of a simple, inexpensive, pragmatic intervention significantly changed practice over a sustained period, improving colonoscopy quality as measured by ADR, particularly in poorer performers. QIC demonstrates that an easy-to-implement quality improvement approach can deliver a sustained change in practice for many years post intervention.

Aim: The adenoma detection rate (ADR) is an important quality measure, with a high ADR reflecting high-quality colonoscopy. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to assess the effects of Endocuff™/Endocuff Vision™-assisted colonoscopy (EAC) versus standard colonoscopy (SC) on ADR and other clinical, patient and resource-use outcomes. Method: MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, Scopus and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched for full papers reporting randomized studies comparing EAC with SC. The primary outcome was ADR. Secondary outcomes comprised key polyp/adenoma detection, procedure-related, patient-related and health economic measures. Random effects meta-analyses provided pooled estimates of outcomes [risk ratio (RR) or mean difference (MD), with 95% confidence intervals (CI)]. Results: Twelve parallel-group randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and three crossover RCTs with data on 9140 patients were included. EAC significantly increased the ADR (RR 1.18, 95% CI 1.09–1.29), mean adenomas per procedure (MAP) (MD 0.19, 95% CI 0.06–0.33), polyp detection rate (PDR) (RR 1.20, 95% CI 1.10–1.30) and mean polyps per procedure (MPP) (MD 0.39, 95% CI 0.14–0.63) versus SC. EAC significantly increased segmental PDR versus SC in the sigmoid (RR 2.02, 95% CI 1.64–2.49), transverse (RR 1.63, 95% CI 1.09–2.42), ascending (RR 1.74, 95% CI 1.26–2.41) and caecal segments (RR 1.91, 95% CI 1.29–2.82). Procedure-related variables did not differ between arms. There were insufficient data for meta-analysis of health economic or patient-centred outcomes. Conclusions: EAC increased ADR, MAP, PDR and MPP versus SC without detrimental effects on procedure measures. Cost-effectiveness and patient experience data are lacking and would be valuable to inform practice recommendations.

Background and study aims The English National Bowel Scope Screening Programme (BSSP) invites 55-year-olds for a one-off, unsedated flexible sigmoidoscopy (FSIG). Data from BSSP participant-reported experience studies shows 1 in 3 participants report moderate or severe discomfort. Water-assisted colonoscopy (WAS) may improve participants’ comfort. The primary objective of this study is to ascertain if post-procedural participant-assessed pain is reduced in WAS compared with carbon dioxide (CO2) insufflation, in invitees undergoing FSIG in BSSP. Patients and methods This is a multicenter, prospective, randomized, two-arm, single-blinded trial designed to evaluate the performance of WAS versus CO2 insufflation in BSSP. Participants will be randomized to either CO2 or WAS and will be asked to rate pain post-procedure. Key procedure-related data will be analyzed, including adenoma detection rates (ADR) and degree of sigmoid looping. A cost-effectiveness analysis of WAS versus CO2 and a discrete choice experiment exploring preferences of participants for attributes of sigmoidoscopy will also be performed. Discussion This is the first trial in the United Kingdom (UK) to investigate the effects of WAS in a screening setting. If the trial shows WAS either reduces pain or increases ADR, this may result in a practice change to implement WAS in screening and non-screening endoscopic practice directly impacting on 256,000 people a year who will undergo BSSP FSIG by 2020.Trial funding came from National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Research for Patient Benefit (RfPB) supported by the NIHR Clinical Research Network. The trial is actively recruiting. ID: 35866 ISRCTN: 81466870

ObjectiveDue to high rates of obesity and alcohol consumption, the prevalence of fatty liver disease is increasing. There is no widely adopted approach to proactively screen for liver disease in the community. We aimed to assess the burden of potentially undiagnosed liver disease in individuals attending for colonoscopy to develop a pathway to identify and manage individuals with undiagnosed liver disease.DesignThe OSCAR Study was a cross-sectional study recruiting patients attending for colonoscopy. Patients’ metabolic and liver risk factors were measured. The prevalence of undiagnosed significant fatty liver disease was measured using the Fatty Liver Index (FLI) and Fibrosis-4 score (FIB-4).Results1429 patients (mean age 59±14 years; 48.8% men) were recruited. 73.3% were overweight/obese, 12.7% had diabetes and 17.9% had metabolic syndrome. 19% were consuming more than recommenced alcohol levels (2.67, high probability of advanced fibrosis) and 90% of these were previously undiagnosed. 818 patients had a predicted 10-year cardiovascular event risk of ≥10%, however only 377 (46.1%) were on statin therapy.ConclusionHigh levels of obesity, metabolic dysfunction and undiagnosed fatty liver disease were found in individuals attending for colonoscopy. Clinical encounters in the endoscopy unit may represent an opportunity to risk assess for liver and metabolic disease and provide an environment to develop targeted interventions.

Introduction Thorough mucosal examination at colonoscopy is essential to detect pathology and ensure high quality procedures. Adenoma detection rate (ADR), defined as the number of colonoscopies where at least one adenoma is detected, is the most important marker of colonic mucosal visualisation and therefore of colonoscopy quality. Histology results are required, making the use of ADR challenging. Polyp detection rate (PDR) is more readily available as it can be collected directly on endoscopy reporting systems. The use of PDR as a substitute for ADR has been deemed acceptable providing it accurately reflects ADR.1 We aim to investigate whether PDR can be reliably used as an alternative to ADR and therefore as a marker of colonoscopy quality. Methods Data were collected from independent endoscopists in eight hospitals in England over a six-month period, including; ADR, PDR, PDR excluding rectal hyperplastic polyps (RHP), mean patient age. The ADR:PDR ratio (APDRQ) per endoscopist and Pearson correlation between ADR and PDR were computed, including and excluding rectal hyperplastic polyps. Multiple linear regression analysis was used to develop a model to predict an endoscopist’s ADR from their PDR. Results 9265 colonoscopies performed by 118 endoscopists were included. Mean ADR and PDR per endoscopist were 17% (range 0–36.3, sd 7.37) and 27.2% (range 0–57.5, sd 9.3), respectively. The mean APDRQ was 0.60 (range 0–1.00, sd 0.21); this was 0.64 (range 0–1.17, sd 0.21) when RHPs were excluded. ADR and PDR were strongly correlated (rho=0.75, p Conclusions This study demonstrates that PDR can accurately be used as a marker of ADR as long as age is also considered. Reference Rees CJ, et al. UK key performance indicators and quality assurance standards for colonoscopy. Gut 2016;65:1923–9

Colonoscopy is the gold standard test in the diagnosis of colorectal cancer. Despite this, many people across the world decline the procedure when invited for screening, surveillance or diagnostic evaluation. The aim of this review was to characterise the barriers and facilitators of colonoscopy use described in the qualitative literature. We searched PubMed and PsychInfo for studies that explored barriers and facilitators of colonoscopy use. To determine the eligibility of studies, we first reviewed titles, then abstracts, and finally the full paper. We started with a narrow search, which we expanded successively, until the number of new publications eligible after abstract review was

Many non-emergency clinical services were suspended during COVID-19 pandemic peak. It is essential to develop a plan for restarting services following the peak. It is equally important to protect patients and staff and to use resources and personal protective equipment (PPE) efficiently. The British Society of Gastroenterology Endoscopy Committee and Quality Improvement Programme has produced guidance on how a restart can be safely delivered. Key recommendations include the following: all patients should have need for endoscopy assessed by senior clinicians and prioritised according to criteria we have outlined; once the need for endoscopy is confirmed, patients should undergo telephone screening for symptoms using systematic questionnaires; all outpatients should undergo RT-PCR testing for COVID-19 virus 1–3 days prior to endoscopy; and PPE should be determined by patient risk stratification, the nature of the procedure and the results of testing. While this guidance is tailored to endoscopy services, it could be adapted for any interventional medical discipline.

BackgroundMeasuring patient experience is important for evaluating the quality of patient care, identifying aspects requiring improvement and optimising patient outcomes. Patient Reported Experience Measures (PREMs) should, ideally, be patient derived, however no such PREMs for gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy exist. This study explored the experiences of patients undergoing GI endoscopy and CT colonography (CTC) in order to: identify aspects of care important to them; determine whether the same themes are relevant across investigative modalities; develop the framework for a GI endoscopy PREM.MethodsPatients aged ≥18 years who had undergone oesophagogastroduodenoscopy (OGD), colonoscopy or CTC for symptoms or surveillance (but not within the national bowel cancer screening programme) in one hospital were invited to participate in semi-structured interviews. Recruitment continued until data saturation. Inductive thematic analysis was undertaken.Results35 patients were interviewed (15 OGD, 10 colonoscopy, 10 CTC). Most patients described their experience chronologically, and five ‘procedural stages’ were evident: before attending for the test; preparing for the test; at the hospital, before the test; during the test; after the test. Six themes were identified: anxiety; expectations; choice & control; communication & information; comfort; embarrassment & dignity. These were present for all three procedures but not all procedure stages. Some themes were inter-related (eg, expectations & anxiety; communication & anxiety).ConclusionWe identified six key themes encapsulating patient experience of GI procedures and these themes were evident for all procedures and across multiple procedure stages. These findings will be used to inform the development of the Newcastle ENDOPREM™.

Aim The delivery of the Scottish Bowel Screening Programme (SBoSP) is rooted in the provision of a high quality, effective and participant-centred service. Safe and effective colonoscopy forms an integral part of the process. Additional accreditation as part of a multi-faceted programme for participating colonoscopists, as in England, does not exist in Scotland. This study aimed to describe the quality of colonoscopy in the SBoSP and compare this to the English national screening standards. Methods Data were collected from the SBoSP between 2007 and 2014. End-points for analysis were caecal intubation, cancer, polyp and adenoma detection, and complications. Overall results were compared with 2012 published English national standards for screening and outcomes from 2006 to 2009. Results During the study period 53 332 participants attended for colonoscopy. The colonoscopy completion rate was 95.6% overall. The mean cancer detection rate was 7.1%, the polyp detection rate was 45.7% and the adenoma detection rate was 35.5%. The overall complication rate was 0.47%. Conclusion Colonoscopy quality in the SBoSP has exceeded the standard set for screening colonoscopy in England, despite not adopting a multi-faceted programme for screening colonoscopy. However, the overall adenoma detection rate in Scotland was 9.1% lower than that in England which has implications for colonoscopy quality and may have an impact on cancer prevention rates, a key aim of the SBoSP.

ObjectiveLow adenoma detection rates (ADR) are linked to increased postcolonoscopy colorectal cancer rates and reduced cancer survival. Devices to enhance mucosal visualisation such as Endocuff Vision (EV) may improve ADR. This multicentre randomised controlled trial compared ADR between EV-assisted colonoscopy (EAC) and standard colonoscopy (SC).DesignPatients referred because of symptoms, surveillance or following a positive faecal occult blood test (FOBt) as part of the Bowel Cancer Screening Programme were recruited from seven hospitals. ADR, mean adenomas per procedure, size and location of adenomas, sessile serrated polyps, EV removal rate, caecal intubation rate, procedural time, patient experience, effect of EV on workload and adverse events were measured.Results1772 patients (57% male, mean age 62 years) were recruited over 16 months with 45% recruited through screening. EAC increased ADR globally from 36.2% to 40.9% (P=0.02). The increase was driven by a 10.8% increase in FOBt-positive screening patients (50.9% SC vs 61.7% EAC, PConclusionEV significantly improved ADR in bowel cancer screening patients and should be used to improve colonoscopic detection.Trial registration numberNCT02552017, Results; ISRCTN11821044, Results.

Background and Aims Distal attachments placed on the colonoscope tip may positively affect performance by assisting insertion and polyp detection. The original Endocuff (ARC Medical Design, Leeds, United Kingdom) appears to improve adenoma detection rate (ADR), but no data assess the performance of the second-generation Endocuff Vision. Methods A pilot service evaluation study (April 2013 to September 2014) was conducted on patients with positive fecal occult blood tests within the National Bowel Cancer Programme during 3 consecutive periods: precuff/no device used, during-cuff/device used, and postcuff/no device used. During the middle period the use of the Endocuff Vision by the 4 screening-accredited colonoscopists was discretional (nonrandomized design). Data were analyzed using pairwise comparisons during the 3 designated periods to examine key performance indicators: adenoma detection, procedural time, sedation requirements, and patient comfort. Results Four hundred ten complete colonoscopies were performed (137 precuff, 136 cuff, and 137 postcuff period). Overall, there was a notable increase in the mean ADR of 16% (P Conclusions In this pilot service evaluation study, the use of the Endocuff Vision appears to be associated with an improvement in overall colonoscopy operator performance. We found increased ADR and MAP as well as decreased time for colonoscope insertion and withdrawal time with no increase in sedation requirements or patient discomfort.

ObjectivesMeasuring patient experience of gastrointestinal (GI) procedures is a key component of evaluation of quality of care. Current measures of patient experience within GI endoscopy are largely clinician derived and measured; however, these do not fully represent the experiences of patients themselves. It is important to measure the entirety of experience and not just experience directly during the procedure. We aimed to develop a patient-reported experience measure (PREM) for GI procedures.DesignPhase 1: semi-structured interviews were conducted in patients who had recently undergone GI endoscopy or CT colonography (CTC) (included as a comparator). Thematic analysis identified the aspects of experience important to patients. Phase 2: a question bank was developed from phase 1 findings, and iteratively refined through rounds of cognitive interviews with patients who had undergone GI procedures, resulting in a pilot PREM. Phase 3: patients who had attended for GI endoscopy or CTC were invited to complete the PREM. Psychometric properties were investigated. Phase 4 involved item reduction and refinement.ResultsPhase 1: interviews with 35 patients identified six overarching themes: anxiety, expectations, information & communication, embarrassment & dignity, choice & control and comfort. Phase 2: cognitive interviews refined questionnaire items and response options. Phase 3: the PREM was distributed to 1650 patients with 799 completing (48%). Psychometric properties were found to be robust. Phase 4: final questionnaire refined including 54 questions assessing patient experience across five temporal procedural stages.ConclusionThis manuscript gives an overview of the development and validation of the Newcastle ENDOPREM™, which assesses all aspects of the GI procedure experience from the patient perspective. It may be used to measure patient experience in clinical care and, in research, to compare patients’ experiences of different endoscopic interventions.

The European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy and United European Gastroenterology present a short list of key performance measures for lower gastrointestinal endoscopy. We recommend that endoscopy services across Europe adopt the following seven key performance measures for lower gastrointestinal endoscopy for measurement and evaluation in daily practice at a center and endoscopist level: 1 Rate of adequate bowel preparation (minimum standard 90 %); 2 Cecal intubation rate (minimum standard 90%); 3 Adenoma de-tection rate (minimum standard 25%); 4 Appropriate polypectomy technique (minimum standard 80%); 5 Complication rate (minimum standard not set); 6 Patient experience (minimum standard not set); 7 Appropriate post-polypectomy surveillance recommendations (minimum standard not set). Other identified performance measures have been listed as less relevant based on an assessment of their importance, scientific acceptability, feasibility, usability, and comparison to competing measures.

These consensus guidelines were jointly commissioned by the British Society of Gastroenterology (BSG), the Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland (ACPGBI) and Public Health England (PHE). They provide an evidence-based framework for the use of surveillance colonoscopy and non-colonoscopic colorectal imaging in people aged 18 years and over. They are the first guidelines that take into account the introduction of national bowel cancer screening. For the first time, they also incorporate surveillance of patients following resection of either adenomatous or serrated polyps and also post-colorectal cancer resection. They are primarily aimed at healthcare professionals, and aim to address:Which patients should commence surveillance post-polypectomy and post-cancer resection?What is the appropriate surveillance interval?When can surveillance be stopped?two or more premalignant polyps including at least one advanced colorectal polyp (defined as a serrated polyp of at least 10 mm in size or containing any grade of dysplasia, or an adenoma of at least 10 mm in size or containing high-grade dysplasia); orfive or more premalignant polypsThe Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE II) instrument provided a methodological framework for the guidelines. The BSG’s guideline development process was used, which is National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) compliant.two or more premalignant polyps including at least one advanced colorectal polyp (defined as a serrated polyp of at least 10 mm in size or containing any grade of dysplasia, or an adenoma of at least 10 mm in size or containing high-grade dysplasia); orfive or more premalignant polypsThe key recommendations are that the high-risk criteria for future colorectal cancer (CRC) following polypectomy comprise either:two or more premalignant polyps including at least one advanced colorectal polyp (defined as a serrated polyp of at least 10 mm in size or containing any grade of dysplasia, or an adenoma of at least 10 mm in size or containing high-grade dysplasia); orfive or more premalignant polypsThis cohort should undergo a one-off surveillance colonoscopy at 3 years. Post-CRC resection patients should undergo a 1 year clearance colonoscopy, then a surveillance colonoscopy after 3 more years.

ObjectivesAdenoma detection rate (ADR) is an important quality marker at lower GI endoscopy. Higher ADRs are associated with lower postcolonoscopy colorectal cancer rates. The English flexible sigmoidoscopy (FS) screening programme (BowelScope), offers a one-off FS to individuals aged 55 years. However, variation in ADR exists. Large studies have demonstrated improved ADR using Endocuff Vision (EV) within colonoscopy screening, but there are no studies within FS. We sought to test the effect of EV on ADR in a national FS screening population.DesignBowelScope: Accuracy of Detection Using ENdocuff Optimisation of Mucosal Abnormalities was a multicentre, randomised controlled trial involving 16 English BowelScope screening centres. Individuals were randomised to Endocuff Vision-assisted BowelScope (EAB) or Standard BowelScope (SB). ADR, polyp detection rate (PDR), mean adenomas per procedure (MAP), polyp characteristics and location, participant experience, procedural time and adverse events were measured. Comparison of ADR within the trial with national BowelScope ADR was also undertaken.Results3222 participants were randomised (53% male) to receive EAB (n=1610) or SB (n=1612). Baseline demographics were comparable between arms. ADR in the EAB arm was 13.3% and that in the SB arm was 12.2% (p=0.353). No statistically significant differences were found in PDR, MAP, polyp characteristics or location, participant experience, complications or procedural characteristics. ADR in the SB control arm was 3.1% higher than the national ADR.ConclusionEV did not improve BowelScope ADR when compared with SB. ADR in both arms was higher than the national ADR. Where detection rates are already high, EV is unable to improve detection further.Trial registration numbersNCT03072472,ISRCTN30005319and CPMS ID 33224.

To investigate patient experience of CT colonography (CTC) and colonoscopy in a national screening programme. Retrospective analysis of patient experience postal questionnaires. We included screenees from a fecal occult blood test (FOBt) based screening programme, where CTC was performed when colonoscopy was incomplete or deemed unsuitable. We analyzed questionnaire responses concerning communication of test risks, test-related discomfort and post-test pain, as well as complications. CTC and colonoscopy responses were compared using multilevel logistic regression. Of 67,114 subjects identified, 52,805 (79 %) responded. Understanding of test risks was lower for CTC (1712/1970 = 86.9 %) than colonoscopy (48783/50975 = 95.7 %, p

Objective The role of serrated polyps (SPs) as colorectal cancer precursor is increasingly recognised. However, the true prevalence SPs is largely unknown. We aimed to evaluate the detection rate of SPs subtypes as well as serrated polyposis syndrome (SPS) among European screening cohorts. Methods Prospectively collected screening cohorts of ≥1000 individuals were eligible for inclusion. Colonoscopies performed before 2009 and/or in individuals aged below 50 were excluded. Rate of SPs was assessed, categorised for histology, location and size. Age–sex–standardised number needed to screen (NNS) to detect SPs were calculated. Rate of SPS was assessed in cohorts with known colonoscopy follow-up data. Clinically relevant SPs (regarded as a separate entity) were defined as SPs ≥10 mm and/or SPs >5 mm in the proximal colon. Results Three faecal occult blood test (FOBT) screening cohorts and two primary colonoscopy screening cohorts (range 1.426–205.949 individuals) were included. Rate of SPs ranged between 15.1% and 27.2% (median 19.5%), of sessile serrated polyps between 2.2% and 4.8% (median 3.3%) and of clinically relevant SPs between 2.1% and 7.8% (median 4.6%). Rate of SPs was similar in FOBT-based cohorts as in colonoscopy screening cohorts. No apparent association between the rate of SP and gender or age was shown. Rate of SPS ranged from 0% to 0.5%, which increased to 0.4% to 0.8% after follow-up colonoscopy. Conclusions The detection rate of SPs is variable among screening cohorts, and standards for reporting, detection and histopathological assessment should be established. The median rate, as found in this study, may contribute to define uniform minimum standards for males and females between 50 and 75 years of age.

Understanding patients' experience of screening programs is crucial for service improvement. The English Bowel Cancer Screening Programme (BCSP) aims to achieve this by sending out questionnaires to all patients who undergo a colonoscopy following an abnormal fecal occult blood test result. This study used the questionnaire data to report the experiences of these patients.Data on patients who underwent colonoscopy between 2011 and 2012 were extracted from the BCSP database. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize key questionnaire items relating to informed choice, psychological wellbeing, physical experience, and after-effects. Multilevel logistic regression was used to test for associations with variables of interest: sex, age, socioeconomic status, colonoscopy results, and screening center performance (adenoma detection rate, cecal intubation rate, proportion of colonoscopies involving sedation).Data from 50,858 patients (79.3 % of those eligible) were analyzed. A majority reported a positive experience on items relating to informed choice (e. g. 95.7 % felt they understood the risks) and psychological wellbeing (e. g. 98.3 % felt they were treated with respect). However, an appreciable proportion experienced unexpected test discomfort (21.0 %) or pain at home (14.8 %). There were few notable demographic differences, although women were more likely than men to experience unexpected discomfort (25.1 % vs. 18.0 %; P 0.01) and pain at home (18.2 % vs. 12.3 %; P 0.01). No associations with center-level variables were apparent.Colonoscopy experience was generally positive, suggesting high satisfaction with the BCSP. Reported pain and unexpected discomfort were more negative than most other outcomes (particularly for women); measures to improve this should be considered.

The European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) and United European Gastroenterology present a list of key performance measures for endoscopy services. We recommend that these performance measures be adopted by all endoscopy services across Europe. The measures include those related to the leadership, organization, and delivery of the service, as well as those associated with the patient journey. Each measure includes a recommendation for a minimum and target standard for endoscopy services to achieve. We recommend that all stakeholders in endoscopy take note of these ESGE endoscopy services performance measures to accelerate their adoption and implementation. Stakeholders include patients and their advocacy groups; service leaders; staff, including endoscopists; professional societies; payers; and regulators. ispartof: UNITED EUROPEAN GASTROENTEROLOGY JOURNAL vol:7 issue:1 pages:21-44 ispartof: location:England status: published

Background Patients with longstanding ulcerative colitis (UC) are at increased risk for developing CRC. During surveillance colonoscopy, a variety of dysplastic and non-dysplastic lesions are detected. The aim of this study was to address the diagnostic accuracy of endoscopic differentiation autofluorescence imaging (AFI), narrow band imaging (NBI) and chromoendoscopy (CE). Methods This is a pre-specified additional analysis of a multicentre randomised controlled trial that compared AFI with CE for dysplasia detection in 210 patients with longstanding UC (FIND-UC trial). In the AFI arm, endoscopists recorded AFI color and Kudo pit pattern using NBI. Kudo pit pattern was described in the CE arm. For AFI, purple colour and ambiguous colour combined with pit pattern type III-V on NBI was considered dysplastic. For pit pattern description using NBI and CE, type III-V was considered dysplastic. Histology was the reference standard; sessile serrated lesions without dysplasia were considered non-dysplastic. Results In total, 52 dysplastic and 255 non-dysplastic lesions were detected. Overall sensitivity for real-time prediction of dysplasia was 76.9% (95% confidence interval (CI) 46.2-95.0) for NBI and AFI combined, and 81.6% (95% CI 65.7-92.3) for CE (p=0.72). For high confidence predictions, negative predictive value (NPV) of the combination of AFI and NBI was 97.7% (95% CI 92.4-99.3) versus 97.4% (95% CI 90.2-97.2) for CE (p=0.41). Interpretation Sensitivity for endoscopic differentiation of dysplastic lesions detected during surveillance of patients with longstanding UC seems limited. The high NPV using these techniques may be sufficient to leave suspected non-dysplastic lesions in situ without biopsy (NTR4062).

The omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acid eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) and aspirin both have proof of concept for colorectal cancer chemoprevention, aligned with an excellent safety profile. Therefore, we aimed to test the efficacy of EPA and aspirin, alone and in combination and compared with a placebo, in individuals with sporadic colorectal neoplasia detected at colonoscopy.In a multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, 2 × 2 factorial trial, patients aged 55-73 years who were identified during colonoscopy as being at high risk in the English Bowel Cancer Screening Programme (BCSP; ≥3 adenomas if at least one was ≥10 mm in diameter or ≥5 adenomas if these were10 mm in diameter) were recruited from 53 BCSP endoscopy units in England, UK. Patients were randomly allocated (1:1:1:1) using a secure web-based server to receive 2 g EPA-free fatty acid (FFA) per day (either as the FFA or triglyceride), 300 mg aspirin per day, both treatments in combination, or placebo for 12 months using random permuted blocks of randomly varying size, and stratified by BCSP site. Research staff and participants were masked to group assignment. The primary endpoint was the adenoma detection rate (ADR; the proportion of participants with any adenoma) at 1 year surveillance colonoscopy analysed in all participants with observable follow-up data using a so-called at-the-margins approach, adjusted for BCSP site and repeat endoscopy at baseline. The safety population included all participants who received at least one dose of study drug. The trial is registered with the International Standard Randomised Controlled Trials Number registry, number ISRCTN05926847.Between Nov 11, 2011, and June 10, 2016, 709 participants were randomly assigned to four treatment groups (176 to placebo, 179 to EPA, 177 to aspirin, and 177 to EPA plus aspirin). Adenoma outcome data were available for 163 (93%) patients in the placebo group, 153 (85%) in the EPA group, 163 (92%) in the aspirin group, and 161 (91%) in the EPA plus aspirin group. The ADR was 61% (100 of 163) in the placebo group, 63% (97 of 153) in the EPA group, 61% (100 of 163) in the aspirin group, and 61% (98 of 161) in the EPA plus aspirin group, with no evidence of any effect for EPA (risk ratio [RR] 0·98, 95% CI 0·87 to 1·12; risk difference -0·9%, -8·8 to 6·9; p=0·81) or aspirin (RR 0·99 (0·87 to 1·12; risk difference -0·6%, -8·5 to 7·2; p=0·88). EPA and aspirin were well tolerated (78 [44%] of 176 had ≥1 adverse event in the placebo group compared with 82 [46%] in the EPA group, 68 [39%] in the aspirin group, and 76 [45%] in the EPA plus aspirin group), although the number of gastrointestinal adverse events was increased in the EPA alone group at 146 events (compared with 85 in the placebo group, 86 in the aspirin group, and 68 in the aspirin plus placebo group). Six upper-gastrointestinal bleeding events were reported across the treatment groups (two in the EPA group, three in the aspirin group, and one in the placebo group).Neither EPA nor aspirin treatment were associated with a reduction in the proportion of patients with at least one colorectal adenoma. Further research is needed regarding the effect on colorectal adenoma number according to adenoma type and location. Optimal use of EPA and aspirin might need a precision medicine approach to adenoma recurrence.Efficacy and Mechanism Evaluation Programme, a UK Medical Research Council and National Institute for Health Research partnership.

GI endoscopy is increasingly the procedure of choice for the investigation and management of upper and lower GI symptoms. Internationally, key performance indicators (KPIs) are often used to provide key data points and auditable outcomes for endoscopists and endoscopy services with published standards existing for colonoscopy, bowel cancer screening, flexible sigmoidoscopy, ERCP and upper GI endoscopy. Quality assurance (QA) and training programs aim to ensure high skill levels of endoscopists and, supported by quality improvement programs (QI), aim to raise the quality of endoscopy service provision. There are currently few defined processes to guide services where standards are not being met. This document, written by a group of international endoscopy experts, is intended to provide pragmatic guidance to units or programs for managing performance that falls below the desired level. The guidance has been written generically with principals applicable to all endoscopic techniques.

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the third most common cancer in the UK. The English National Health Service (NHS) Bowel Cancer Screening Program (BCSP) was introduced in 2006 to improve CRC mortality by earlier detection of CRC. It is now offered to patients aged 60-74 years and involves a home-based guaiac fecal occult blood test (gFOBt) biennially, and if positive, patients are offered a colonoscopy. This has been associated with a 15% reduction in mortality. In 2013, an additional arm to BCSP was introduced, Bowelscope. This offers patients aged 55 years a one-off flexible sigmoidoscopy, and if several adenomas are found, the patients are offered a completion colonoscopy. BCSP has been associated with a significant stage shift in CRC diagnosis; however, the uptake of bowel cancer screening remains lower than that for other screening programs. Further work is required to understand the reasons for nonparticipation of patients to ensure optimal uptake. A change of gFOBt kit to the fecal immunochemical tests (FIT) in the English BCSP may further increase patient participation. This, in addition to increased yield of neoplasia and cancers with the FIT kit, is likely to further improve CRC outcomes in the screened population.

Background and study aim: High quality colonoscopy requires low complication rates. However in quality assurance, evaluation of individual colonoscopist complication rates is limited because complications are relatively rare events and there is variation in average procedure complexity. The aim of the study was to develop a quality system that adjusted for procedure complexity to monitor bleeding adverse events at both the screening center and colonoscopist levels. Methods: The study examined the risk factors for post-procedure bleeding from 130 831 colonoscopies conducted between August 2006 and January 2012. Binomial and logistic regression models were used to examine the risk of events against explanatory variables including age, sex, polyps resected, and polyp size. The models were used to produce a procedure-adjusted standardized adverse event ratio (PASAER) based on the ratio of the observed to expected number of adverse events. The primary outcome of interest was to identify centers that were outside a funnel plot outlier level of 99.8 % (3 SDs). Results: Mulivariate models showed that the risk of bleeding was associated with largest resected polyp size, sex, polyp location, and degree of co-morbidity. These variables were used to calculate PASAERs for the 59 screening centers and 286 colonoscopists. The method highlighted one center with a high PASAER of 3.08 (32 observed compared with 10.4 expected events) and one with a low PASAER of 0.34 (10 observed compared with 29.8 expected events), which merited further investigation. Conclusions: The PASAER provided additional certainty that a crude adverse event rate was not confounded by procedure complexity, thus objectively identifying centers or colonoscopists that required further performance evaluation.

AIM Medication may be used to manage discomfort during colonoscopy but practice varies. The relationship between medication use and comfort during colonoscopy was examined in the English Bowel Cancer Screening Programme. METHODS Data related to patient comfort and medication use from all 113,316 examinations performed within the English Bowel Cancer Screening Programme between 1 January 2010 and 31 December 2012 were analysed. Comfort was rated on the five-point Modified Gloucester Comfort Scale: 1, no discomfort; 5, severe discomfort. Scores of 4 and 5 were considered to indicate significant discomfort. Correlations between the proportion of examinations associated with significant discomfort and the amounts of medication used by colonoscopists were assessed using Spearman's ρ. Logistic regression modelling examined the independent predictors of significant discomfort. RESULTS Patients had a mean age of 65.7 years, and 58% were male. Examinations were performed by 290 endoscopists. In 91% of examinations, there was no significant discomfort reported during examination; however, there was considerable variation between individual colonoscopists (range 76.1-99.2%).Intravenous sedation and opiate analgesia were used during most examinations, but there was wide variation between colonoscopists, with a median (range) usage of 95.1% (4.1-100%) and 97.3% (5.6-100%), respectively. There was no association between the amount of sedation and analgesia used and significant discomfort (ρ

Colorectal cancer is the third most common cancer worldwide and the second most common cause of cancer-related death in Europe and North America. Colonoscopy is the gold standard investigation for the colon but is not perfect, and small or flat adenomas can be missed which increases the risk of patients subsequently developing colorectal cancer. Adenoma detection rate is the most widely used marker of quality, and low rates are associated with increased rates of post-colonoscopy colorectal cancer. Standards of colonoscopy and adenoma detection vary widely between different endoscopists. Interventions to improve adenoma detection rate are therefore required. Many devices have been purported to increase adenoma detection rate. This review looks at current available evidence for device technology to improve adenoma detection rate during colonoscopy.

Introduction Colonoscopy is the gold standard test for investigating lower gastrointestinal symptoms and is an important therapeutic tool for colonic polypectomy. This paper is aimed at the general physician and examines the role of colonoscopy in very elderly patients by exploring the particular risks in this population, the yield of colonoscopy and potential alternative investigations. Sources of data Original research and review articles were identified through selective PubMed searches. Guidelines were identified through interrogation of national and international society websites in addition to PubMed searches. Areas of agreement Advanced age alone is not a reason to avoid investigation. The decision to perform colonoscopy in this population must take into account indication and yield, risks of the procedure and bowel preparation, physical fitness of the patient, potential alternative and the ability to consent. As a general rule, the principle of 'first doing no harm' should be applied and requires balancing of the risks of the procedure and preparation with the benefits of doing the test. Areas of controversy There is no defined upper age limit at which colonoscopy is contraindicated, however; the National Health Service Bowel Cancer Screening Programme stops inviting patients for screening and surveillance colonoscopy at age 75. Growing points and areas timely for developing research The concepts of 'first do no harm' and shared decision-making are not new but are increasingly important, particularly in this patient group. It is crucial to provide patients with information about risks, benefits and alternative investigations to empower their decision-making.

Serrated polyps have been recognised in the last decade\ud as important premalignant lesions accounting for\ud between 15% and 30% of colorectal cancers. There is\ud therefore a clinical need for guidance on how to manage\ud these lesions; however, the evidence base is limited. A\ud working group was commission by the British Society of\ud Gastroenterology (BSG) Endoscopy section to review the\ud available evidence and develop a position statement to\ud provide clinical guidance until the evidence becomes\ud available to support a formal guideline. The scope of the\ud position statement was wide-ranging and included:\ud evidence that serrated lesions have premalignant\ud potential; detection and resection of serrated lesions;\ud surveillance strategies after detection of serrated lesions;\ud special situations—serrated polyposis syndrome\ud (including surgery) and serrated lesions in colitis;\ud education, audit and benchmarks and research\ud questions. Statements on these issues were proposed\ud where the evidence was deemed sufficient, and reevaluated\ud modified via a Delphi process until >80%\ud agreement was reached. The Grading of\ud Recommendations, Assessment, Development and\ud Evaluations (GRADE) tool was used to assess the\ud strength of evidence and strength of recommendation\ud for finalised statements. Key recommendation: we\ud suggest that until further evidence on the efficacy or\ud otherwise of surveillance are published, patients with\ud sessile serrated lesions (SSLs) that appear associated\ud with a higher risk of future neoplasia or colorectal\ud cancer (SSLs ≥10 mm or serrated lesions harbouring\ud dysplasia including traditional serrated adenomas)\ud should be offered a one-off colonoscopic surveillance\ud examination at 3 years (weak recommendation, low\ud quality evidence, 90% agreement).

Introduction Patient experience is increasingly recognised as a key measure of quality of care. Ensuring positive experience is important to patients and fundamental in maximising participation in screening programmes and re-attendance for surveillance procedures. Current measures of patient experience of gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy are clinician derived.1Patient Reported Experience Measures (PREMs) should be patient derived and incorporate pre-and post-procedure experience. We aimed to identify themes considered as important to patients undergoing GI procedures as a basis for developing PREMs. Method Patients who had undergone upper or lower GI investigations (gastroscopy, colonoscopy and CT pneumocolon) were invited to attend for a semi-structured interview. 32 interviewees were purposefully sampled to ensure diversity. Interviews were conducted by a research fellow trained in qualitative methods and were audio recorded and transcribed verbatim. Recruitment continued until saturation was achieved. Analysis used qualitative thematic methods focusing on anticipated and emergent themes, using constant comparison to ensure that all perspectives were included in the explanation of the data. Results 168 patients were approached. 32 interviews were completed (12 gastroscopy, 10 colonoscopy and 10 CT pneumocolon), with a male:female ratio of 18:14. The time interval from examination to procedure ranged from 5 to 44 days. Mean age was 63.1 years (SD 11.5) The interviews provided an in-depth understanding of patient experience of GI procedures. 6 over-arching and inter-linking themes emerged across all procedures; anxiety, expectations, choice/control, communication/information, comfort and embarrassment/dignity. Relation of themes was seen e.g. if the procedure appointment was sooner than expected, patients were anxious about the potential outcome. Choice was important in terms of appointment, endoscopist and choice of pre-medication, however it was highly individualised. Communication prepared patients and managed expectations, with one patient describing poor endoscopist communication affecting the whole experience. Patients described embarrassment related to changing and waiting areas; sensitive nature of the test; exposure and physical reaction. Discomfort during the procedure was attributed to instrument and air insertion. Conclusion Despite heterogeneity between procedures consistent themes related to patient experience emerged. This work will be used to develop PREMs for GI Endoscopy. Reference . Brown S, et al. Patient-derived measures of GI endoscopy: a meta-narrative review of the literature. Gastrointest Endosc2015;81(5):1130–40 Disclosure of Interest None Declared

Background: Colorectal neoplasia causes bleeding, enabling detection using Faecal Occult Blood tests (FOBt). The National Health Service (NHS) Bowel Cancer Screening Programme (BCSP) guaiac-based FOBt (gFOBt) kits contain six sample windows (or ‘spots') and each kit returns either a positive, unclear or negative result. Test kits with five or six positive windows are termed ‘abnormal' and the subject is referred for further investigation, usually colonoscopy. If 1–4 windows are positive, the result is initially ‘unclear' and up to two further kits are submitted, further positivity leads to colonoscopy (‘weak positive'). If no further blood is detected, the test is deemed ‘normal' and subjects are tested again in 2 years' time. We studied the association between spot positivity % (SP%) and neoplasia. Methods: Subjects in the Southern Hub completing the first of two consecutive episodes between April 2009 and March 2011 were studied. Each episode included up to three kits and a maximum of 18 windows (spots). For each positivity combination, the percentage of positive spots out of the total number of spots completed by an individual in a single-screening episode was derived and named ‘SP%'. Fifty-five combinations of SP can occur if the position of positive/negative spots on the same test card is ignored. The proportion of individuals for whom neoplasia was identified in Episode 2 was derived for each of the 55 spot combinations. In addition, the Episode 1 spot pattern was analysed for subjects with cancer detected in Episode 2. Results: During Episode 2, 284 261 subjects completed gFOBT screening and colonoscopies were performed on 3891 (1.4%) subjects. At colonoscopy, cancer was detected in 7.4% (n=286) and a further 39.8% (n=1550) had adenomas. Cancer was detected in 21.3% of subjects with an abnormal first kit (five or six positive spots) and in 5.9% of those with a weak positive test result. The proportion of cancers detected was positively correlated with SP%, with an R2 correlation (linear) of 0.89. As the SP% increased from 11 to 100%, so the colorectal cancer (CRC) detection rate increased from 4 to 25%. At the lower SP%s, from 11to 25%, the CRC risk was relatively static at ∼4%. Above an SP% of 25%, every 10-percentage points increase in the SP%, was associated with an increase in cancer detection of 2.5%. Conclusions: This study demonstrated a strong correlation between SP% and cancer detection within the NHS BCSP. At the population level, subjects' cancer risk ranged from 4 to 25% and correlated with the gFOBt spot pattern. Some subjects with an SP% of 11% proceed to colonoscopy, whereas others with an SP% of 22% do not. Colonoscopy on patients with four positive spots in kit 1 (SP% 22%) would, we estimate, detect cancer in ∼4% of cases and increase overall colonoscopy volume by 6%. This study also demonstrated how screening programme data could be used to guide its ongoing implementation and inform other programmes.

Colonoscopy is the ‘gold standard’ investigation of the colon. High quality colonoscopy is essential to diagnose early cancer and reduce its incidence through the detection and removal of pre-malignant adenomas. In this review, we discuss the key components of a high quality colonoscopy, review methods for improving quality, emerging technologies that have the potential to improve quality and highlight areas for future work.

Background Accurate optical characterisation and removal of small adenomas (

Background: Colonoscopy is the gold standard investigation for the diagnosis of bowel pathology and colorectal cancer screening. Adenoma detection rate is a marker of high quality colonoscopy and a high adenoma detection rate is associated with a lower incidence of interval cancers. Several technological advancements have been explored to improve adenoma detection rate. A new device called Endocuff Vision™ has been shown to improve adenoma detection rate in pilot studies. Methods/Design: This is a prospective, multicenter, randomized controlled trial comparing the adenoma detection rate in patients undergoing Endocuff Vision™-assisted colonoscopy with standard colonoscopy. All patients above 18 years of age referred for screening, surveillance, or diagnostic colonoscopy who are able to consent are invited to the study. Patients with absolute contraindications to colonoscopy, large bowel obstruction or pseudo-obstruction, colon cancer or polyposis syndromes, colonic strictures, severe diverticular segments, active colitis, anticoagulant therapy, or pregnancy are excluded. Patients are randomized according to site, age, sex, and bowel cancer screening status to receive Endocuff Vision™-assisted colonoscopy or standard colonoscopy on the day of procedure. Baseline data, colonoscopy, and polyp data including histology are collected. Nurse assessment of patient comfort and patient comfort questionnaires are completed post procedure. Patients are followed up at 21 days and complete a patient experience questionnaire. This study will take place across seven NHS Hospital Trusts: one in London and six within the Northern Region Endoscopy Group. A maximum of 10 colonoscopists per site will recruit a total of 1772 patients, with a maximum of four bowel screening colonoscopists permitted per site. Discussion: This is the first trial to evaluate the adenoma detection rate of Endocuff Vision™ in all screening, surveillance, and diagnostic patient groups. This timely study will guide clinicians as to the role of Endocuff Vision™ in routine colonoscopy. Study registration: ISRCTN11821044.

Purpose – The quality improvement in colonoscopy study was a region wide service improvement study to improve adenoma detection rate at colonoscopy by implementing evidence into routine colonoscopy practice. Implementing evidence into clinical practice can be challenging. The purpose of this paper is to perform a qualitative interview study to evaluate factors that influenced implementation within the study. Design/methodology/approach – Semi-structured interviews were conducted with staff in endoscopy units taking part in the quality improvement in colonoscopy study, after study completion. Units and interviewees were purposefully sampled to ensure a range of experiences was represented. Interviews were conducted with 11 participants. Findings – Key themes influencing uptake of the quality improvement in colonoscopy evidence bundle included time, study promotion, training, engagement, positive outcomes and modifications. Areas within themes were increased awareness of quality in colonoscopy (QIC), emphasis on withdrawal time and empowerment of endoscopy nurses to encourage the use of quality measures were positive outcomes of the study. The simple, visible study posters were reported as useful in aiding study promotion. Feedback sessions improved engagement. Challenges included difficulty arranging set-up meetings and engaging certain speciality groups. Originality/value – This evaluation suggests that methods to implement evidence into clinical practice should include identification and empowerment of team members who can positively influence engagement, simple, visible reminders and feedback. Emphasis on timing of meetings and strategies to engage speciality groups should also be given consideration. Qualitative evaluations can provide important insights into why quality improvement initiatives are successful or not, across different sites.

Colonoscopy is a widely performed procedure with procedural volumes increasing annually throughout the world. Many procedures are now performed as part of colorectal cancer screening programmes. Colonoscopy should be of high quality and measures of this quality should be evidence based. New UK key performance indicators and quality assurance standards have been developed by a working group with consensus agreement on each standard reached. This paper reviews the scientific basis for each of the quality measures published in the UK standards.

Introduction The aim of colonoscopy is to examine the colon completely and meticulously looking for malignant and pre-malignant lesions (adenomas). The measure for completeness is the caecal intubation rate (CIR) and for thoroughness the adenoma detection rate (ADR). National Standards (NS) are ≥90% and ≥10% respectively. 1 Variability in CIR, ADR and thusly quality, have been shown but comparison between individuals and units is difficult. 2 3 We aimed to use graphical representation to assess colonoscopy performance in the North East of England. Methods Data on colonoscopy performance and sedation use were collected over 3 months from 12 units. Colonoscopies performed by screening colonoscopists were included in the global CIR only. Funnel plots with upper and lower 95% confidence limits (CL) for CIR and ADR were created using the binomial probability distributions for inferences about a single proportion. Results CIR was 92.5% (n=5720) and ADR 15.9% (n=4748). All units and 128 (99.2%) colonoscopists were above the lower limit for CIR. All units achieved the ADR standard with 10 above the upper limit. Ninety-nine (76.7%) colonoscopists were above 10%, 16 (12.4%) above the upper limit and 7 (5.4%) below the lower limit (Abstract PWE-189 figure 1). Median medication doses were: 2.2 mg midazolam, 29.4 mg pethidine, and 83.3 mg fentanyl. 15.1% of colonoscopies were unsedated. Complications were bleeding (0.10%) and perforation (0.02%). There was 1 death possibly related to bowel preparation. Conclusion Results indicate colonoscopies are performed safely and to a high standard. Funnel plots can highlight variability and areas for improvement. Analyses of ADR presented graphically around the global mean suggest that the NS should be reset at 15%. Competing interests None declared. References 1. The Joint Advisory Group for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy . Guidance for colonoscopy certification and continued practice. Dr Colin Rees and Dr John Painter. 2006. http://www.thejag.org.uk 2. Bowles CJ , Leicester R, Romaya C. A prospective study of colonoscopy practice in the UK today: are we adequately prepared for the national colorectal cancer screening tomorrow? Gut 2004; 53 :277–83. 3. van Rijn JC , Reitsma JB, Stoker J, et al. Polyp miss rate determined by tandem colonoscopy: a systematic review. Am J Gastroenterol 2006; 101 :343–50.

Aim The National Health Service Bowel Cancer Screening Programme (BCSP) aims to detect earlier stage cancer in asymptomatic individuals. Early experience suggested that many participants had lower gastrointestinal symptoms before screening. The study evaluated the prevalence of lower gastrointestinal symptoms and consultation behaviour among individuals undergoing colonoscopy at the South of Tyne BCSP Centre. Method Data were collected on all undergoing clinic assessment and colonoscopy. Symptoms were categorized as altered bowel habit (ABH), rectal bleeding (RB), abdominal pain (AP) and unexplained weight loss (UWL). Results Symptoms were present in 65.1% (492/756) of subjects, 64.4% (431/669) of those with a non-cancer diagnosis and 70.1% (61/87) of those with cancer. Among those with a non-cancer diagnosis, symptoms were ABH in 52% (224/431), RB in 81.4% (351/431), AP in 15.3% (66/431) and UWL in 3.0% (13/431). In those with cancer symptoms they were ABH in 33.3% (29/87), RB in 55.2% (48/87) and AP in 11.5% (10/87). There was no significant difference in the prevalence of symptoms in those with a cancer or non-cancer diagnosis. A total of 34.2% (157/459) of individuals with symptoms had consulted their general practitioner, 28.1% (16/57) of those with cancer and 35.1% (141/402) without. Conclusion A large proportion of individuals colonoscoped in the BCSP reported symptoms predating screening. Their prevalence did not differ significantly between cancer and non-cancer diagnoses. The majority had not consulted their general practitioner. Health promotion regarding the importance of lower gastrointestinal symptoms and a risk assessment tool to help select those needing urgent specialist assessment are required.

The Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency has recently circulated a Drug Safety Update regarding the risk of serious adverse events following the use of intravenous hyoscine butylbromide (Buscopan) in patients with underlying cardiac disease.1 Buscopan is commonly used during endoscopic procedures. It induces smooth muscle relaxation and reduces spasm in the gastrointestinal tract. It is used during upper gastrointestinal endoscopy and small bowel enteroscopy to reduce contraction and aid mucosal visualisation.2 During endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography, it is used to facilitate access to the common bile duct during cannulation of the ampulla of Vater.3 During colonoscopy, it is …

Objectives The UK National Health Service Bowel Cancer Screening Programme (BCSP) is based on a strategy of biennial faecal occult blood (FOB) testing. Positive results are classified as ‘abnormal’ or ‘weak positive’ based on the number of positive windows per kit or need for repeat testing. Colonoscopy is offered to both groups. We evaluate the relationship between FOB test positivity and clinical outcome in the BCSP. Setting The South of Tyne and Tees (UK) Bowel Cancer Screening Centres. Methods Data were collected prospectively on all individuals who were offered FOB testing and colonoscopy between February 2007 and February 2009. Univariable and multivariable analyses were performed to investigate the relationship between FOB test positivity and clinical outcome. Results Following FOB testing, 1524 individuals underwent colonoscopy, 1259 (83%) after a ‘weak positive’ and 265 (17%) an ‘abnormal’ result. Cancer was detected in 180 (11.8%) and adenomas in 758 (49.7%). Individuals with an ‘abnormal’ result were more likely to have cancer or be ‘high risk’ for the development of future adenomas (110/265, 41.5%) than those with ‘weak positive’ results, (236/1259, 18.7%, P < 0.0001). Those with Dukes stage B, C or D cancers or cancers proximal to the splenic flexure were more likely to have an ‘abnormal’ result. Conclusions The majority of colonoscopies were performed following ‘weak positive’ FOB results. Those with an ‘abnormal’ result were more likely to be diagnosed with cancer. The high yield of pathology in both the ‘abnormal’ and ‘weak positive’ groups justifies the need for colonoscopy in both.

IntroductionEvidence suggests bowel scope screening (BSS) can significantly reduce an individual’s risk of developing colorectal cancer (CRC). BSS for 55 year olds was therefore introduced to the English Bowel Cancer Screening Programme (BCSP) in 2013. However, the benefits are only gained from test completion and uptake is low (43%). Primary care involvement has consistently shown benefits to cancer screening uptake and so this study aims to build on this knowledge and evaluate general practitioner (GP) practice led interventions designed to increase BSS attendance.Methods and analysisA three-arm randomised controlled trial will be conducted to evaluate three interventions: one intervention for prospective BSS invitees (primer letter with locally tailored leaflet sent by an individual’s GP practice) and two interventions for those who do not attend their BSS appointment (a self-referral letter sent by an individual’s GP practice and a patient navigation call made on behalf of an individual’s GP practice). The trial will be set in Yorkshire. Individuals soon to receive their invitation to attend BSS at one of the Hull and East Yorkshire Bowel Cancer Screening centre sites, will be randomly assigned to one of three groups: control (usual care; no input from GP practice), Intervention group A (primer letter/leaflet and a self-referral letter), Intervention group B (primer letter/leaflet and a patient navigation call). Attendance data will be obtained from the BCSP database (via National Health Service (NHS) Digital) 3 months after the last intervention. Regression analysis will compare uptake, and additional clinical outcomes, across the three groups. The analysis will be multivariate and adjust for several covariates including gender and area-level deprivation.Ethics and disseminationNHS ethical approval has been obtained from London-Harrow Research Ethics Committee. The results will be submitted for publication in a peer-reviewed journal and presented at conferences.Trial registration numberISRCTN16252122; Pre-results.

Colonoscopy is the gold standard investigation for examining the lower GI tract [1]. It plays a fundamental role in investigation of symptomatic individuals and in screening for colorectal cancer (CRC) [2,3]. Colonoscopy must be high quality in order to maximize its benefit [4]. Poor-quality colonoscopy is associated with increased interval cancer rates [4]. High-quality colonoscopy involves a complete procedure that provides comprehensive inspection of colonic mucosa [5]. There are a number of markers of colonoscopy quality, [2,6,7] with cecal intubation rate (CIR) historically being the most widely reported [8]. Cecal intubation was previously confirmed by written documentation of the cecal landmarks; however, photo-documentation of the cecum is now the accepted method of confirming colonoscopy completion. The European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) guidelines recommend that such photo-documentation includes images of both the ileocecal valve and the cecum with views of the appendiceal orifice [9]. CIR is variable and many measures have been used to improve it [10–12]. The United Kingdom has engaged in a comprehensive quality improvement program with significant improvements [10,13]. Other countries have demonstrated similar results [14]. Although CIR is an important marker of completion of a procedure, other markers of quality include adenoma detection rate (ADR), bowel preparation, rectal examination and rectal retroflexion, colonoscopy withdrawal time (CWT), polyp retrieval, and complication rates [15–21]. Furthermore, comfort scores, tattooing of suspected malignant lesions in the colon, and taking diagnostic biopsies for unexplained diarrhea are seen as quality markers in addition to the rate of postcolonoscopy colorectal cancer [22–25]. Clinician performance in each of these areas is variable, but those who perform well tend to do so across all measures [22]. Among all measures, the most important marker of colonoscopy quality is adenoma detection rate [15–17]. ADR has clearly been shown to correlate with interval cancers [4]. Patients scoped by colonoscopists with high ADRs have lower interval cancer rates [4]. Furthermore, patients scoped by colonoscopists with higher ADRs have lower CRC mortality rates [16]. Polyp detection rate (PDR) can be used as a surrogate marker of ADR [26]. The paper, “Meticulous cecal image documentation at colonoscopy is associated with improved polyp detection,” published in this edition of Endoscopy International Open, explores the link between polyp detection rates and the quality of cecal photo-documentation. The paper reports a correlation between good-quality cecal photodocumentation and higher PDRs, including rightsided polyp detection (although some of these were hyperplastic polyps). Right-sided lesions are of particular interest and it may be that failure to detect them is one reason that screening programs are not adequately preventing right-sided colorectal cancer [27,28]. The reason for the correlation between PDR and image quality may be that colonoscopists who take time to capture convincing cecal images are generally more careful in their withdrawal examination. Another explanation may be that these “meticulous” colonoscopists have better control over the endoscope, which leads to better mucosal visualization. Longer mean CWTs are associated with increased adenoma detection, and are more relevant than total procedure times, as the majority of mucosal visualisation occurs on withdrawal of the colonoscope [19,29]. Although there was no statistically significant difference in procedure duration between “meticulous” and “non-meticulous” endoscopists in this study, the

Low adenoma detection rates (ADRs) at colonoscopy are linked to significantly higher interval cancer rates, and vary between colonoscopists. Studies demonstrate that lesion detection is improved by: withdrawal time of ≥ 6 minutes; use of hyoscine butylbromide; position change; and rectal retroflexion. We evaluated the feasibility of implementing the above "bundle" of interventions into colonoscopy practice, and the effect on ADR.A longitudinal cohort design was used. Implementation combined central training, local promotion, and feedback. The uptake marker was change in hyoscine butylbromide use. Comparisons were between the 3 months before and the 9 months after the implementation phase, globally, by endoscopy unit and by quartile when colonoscopists were ranked according to baseline ADR. Chi-squared or Fisher's tests were used to evaluate significance.12 units participated. Global and quartile analyses included data from 118 and 68 colonoscopists and 17 508 and 14 193 procedures respectively. A significant increase in hyoscine butylbromide use was observed globally (54.4 % vs. 15.8 %, P 0.001), in all endoscopy units (P 0.001) and quartiles (P 0.001). A significant increase in ADR was observed globally (18.1 % vs. 16.0 %, P = 0.002) and in the lower two colonoscopist quartiles (P 0.001), with a nonsignificant increase in the upper middle quartile and a significant fall to 21.5 %. in the upper quartile. The significant variations in ADR among the upper three quartiles disappeared.In routine clinical practice, introduction of a simple, inexpensive, evidence-based "bundle" of measures is feasible and is associated with higher global ADR, driven by improvements amongst the poorest performing colonoscopists.