No abstract

No abstract

Adenomatous polyps are the most common neoplastic findings uncovered in people who undergo colorectal screening or have a diagnostic workup for symptoms. It was common practice in the 1970s for these patients to have annual follow-up surveillance examinations to detect additional new adenomas as well as missed synchronous adenomas. As a result of the National Polyp Study report in 1993, which demonstrated clearly in a randomized design that the first postpolypectomy examination could be deferred for 3 years, guidelines published by a gastrointestinal consortium in 1997 recommended that the first follow-up surveillance be 3 years after polypectomy for most patients. In 2003, these guidelines were updated, colonoscopy was recommended as the only follow-up examination, and stratification at baseline into lower and higher risk for subsequent adenomas was suggested. The 1997 and 2003 guidelines dealt with both screening and surveillance. However, it has become increasingly clear that postpolypectomy surveillance is now a large part of endoscopic practice, draining resources from screening and diagnosis. In addition, surveys have demonstrated that a large proportion of endoscopists are conducting surveillance examinations at shorter intervals than recommended in the guidelines. In the present paper, a careful analytic approach was designed addressing all evidence available in the literature to delineate predictors of advanced pathology, both cancer and advanced adenomas, so that patients can be more definitely stratified at their baseline colonoscopy into those at lower or increased risk for a subsequent advanced neoplasia. People at increased risk have either three or more adenomas, or highgrade dysplasia, or villous features, or an adenoma Ն1 cm in size. It is recommended that they have a 3-year follow-up colonoscopy. People at lower risk who have one or two small (Ͻ1 cm)

No abstract

The education community has begun to address the challenges involved in implementing CBME. Models and guidance exist to inform implementation strategies across the continuum of education, and focus on the more efficient use of resources and technology, and the use of milestones and entrustable professional activities-based frameworks. Inconsistencies in CBME definitions and frameworks remain a significant obstacle. Evolution in assessment approaches from in vitro task-based methods to in vivo integrated approaches is responsive to many of the theoretical and conceptual concerns about CBME, but much work remains to be done to bring rigour and quality to work-based assessment.