Search

Aim: There is a requirement for an expansive and up to date review of the management of emergency colorectal conditions seen in adults. The primary objective is to provide detailed evidence-based guidelines for the target audience of general and colorectal surgeons who are responsible for an adult population and who practise in Great Britain and Ireland., Methods: Surgeons who are elected members of the Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland Emergency Surgery Subcommittee were invited to contribute various sections to the guidelines. They were directed to produce a pathology-based document using literature searches that were systematic, comprehensible, transparent and reproducible. Levels of evidence were graded. Each author was asked to provide a set of recommendations which were evidence-based and unambiguous. These recommendations were submitted to the whole guideline group and scored. They were then refined and submitted to a second vote. Only those that achieved >80% consensus at level 5 (strongly agree) or level 4 (agree) after two votes were included in the guidelines., Results: All aspects of care (excluding abdominal trauma) for emergency colorectal conditions have been included along with 122 recommendations for management., Conclusion: These guidelines provide an up to date and evidence-based summary of the current surgical knowledge in the management of emergency colorectal conditions and should serve as practical text for clinicians managing colorectal conditions in the emergency setting., (© 2021 The Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland.)

Background: The National Training Programme for laparoscopic colorectal surgery in England was implemented to ensure training was supervised, structured, safe and effective. Delegates were required to pass a competency assessment (sign-off) before undertaking independent practice. This study described the types of errors identified and associated these errors with competency to progress to independent laparoscopic colorectal practice., Methods: All sign-off submissions from the start of the process in January 2008 until July 2013 were included. Content analysis was used to categorise errors. Bayes factor (BF) was used to measure the impact of individual error on assessment outcome. A smaller BF indicates that an error has stronger associations with unsuccessful assessments. Bayesian network was employed to graphically represent the reasoning process whereby the chance of successful assessment diminished with the identification of each error. Quality of the error feedback was measured by the area under the ROC curve which linked the predictions from the Bayesian model to the expert verdict., Results: Among 370 assessments analysed, 240 passed and 130 failed. On average, 2.5 different types of error were identified in each assessment. Cases that were more likely to fail had three or more different types of error (χ(2) = 72, p < 0.0001) and demonstrated poorer technical skills (CAT score <2.7, χ(2) = 164, p < 0.0001). Case complexity or right- versus left-sided resection did not have a significant impact. Errors associated with dissection (BF = 0.18), anastomosis (BF = 0.23) and oncological quality (BF = 0.19) were critical determinants of surgical competence, each reducing the odds of pass by at least fourfold. The area under the ROC curve was 0.84., Conclusions: Errors associated with dissection, anastomosis and oncological quality were critical determinants of surgical competency. The detailed error analysis reported in this study can guide the design of future surgical education and clinical training programmes.