Colonoscopy should be delivered by endoscopists performing high quality procedures. The British Society of Gastroenterology, the UK Joint Advisory Group on GI Endoscopy, and the Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland have developed quality assurance measures and key performance indicators for the delivery of colonoscopy within the UK. This document sets minimal standards for delivery of procedures along with aspirational targets that all endoscopists should aim for.

The thickness of adherent mucus gel on the surface of colonic mucosa was measured in surgically resected specimens from 46 'control' patients most of whom had carcinoma of the colon; 12 were from right colon, 17 left colon, and 21 from rectum. In addition specimens were examined from 17 patients with ulcerative colitis and 15 patients with Crohn's disease. In controls a continuous layer of mucus was readily seen on specially prepared sections viewed by phase contrast illumination. Mean values for right and left colon and rectum were 107 (48), 134 (68), and 155 (54) ,tm respectively with a significant difference between right colon and rectum (p=0015). Values in ulcerative colitis showed greater variation and in those areas with acute inflammation mucosa was denuded of the mucus layer. In contrast, values for Crohn's disease were normal or greater than normal in thickness -right colon 190 (83) [tm compared with 107 48 ,um, p=0-0093. A series of validation experiments are described for the method used to measure mucus thickness. The possible role of mucus in the pathogenesis of inflammatory bowel disease is discussed.

No abstract

These guidelines provide an evidence-based framework for the management of patients with large non-pedunculated colorectal polyps (LNPCPs), in addition to identifying key performance indicators (KPIs) that permit the audit of quality outcomes. These are areas not previously covered by British Society of Gastroenterology (BSG) Guidelines.A National Institute of Health and Care Excellence (NICE) compliant BSG guideline development process was used throughout and the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE II) tool was used to structure the guideline development process. A systematic review of literature was conducted for English language articles up to May 2014 concerning the assessment and management of LNPCPs. Quality of evaluated studies was assessed using the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN) Methodology Checklist System. Proposed recommendation statements were evaluated by each member of the Guideline Development Group (GDG) on a scale from 1 (strongly agree) to 5 (strongly disagree) with >80% agreement required for consensus to be reached. Where consensus was not reached a modified Delphi process was used to re-evaluate and modify proposed statements until consensus was reached or the statement discarded. A round table meeting was subsequently held to finalise recommendations and to evaluate the strength of evidence discussed. The GRADE tool was used to assess the strength of evidence and strength of recommendation for finalised statements.KPIs, a training framework and potential research questions for the management of LNPCPs were also developed. It is hoped that these guidelines will improve the assessment and management of LNPCPs.

Introduction In the UK, endoscopy certification is administered by the Joint Advisory Group on Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (JAG). Since 2011, certification for upper and lower gastrointestinal endoscopy has been awarded via a national (JETS) e-portfolio to the main training specialties of: gastroenterology, gastrointestinal surgeons (GS) and non-medical endoscopists (NME). Trends in endoscopy certification and differences between trainee specialties were analyzed. Methods This prospective UK-wide observational study identified trainees awarded gastroscopy, sigmoidoscopy, colonoscopy (provisional and full) certification between June 2011 – 2017. Trends in certification, procedures and time-to-certification, and key performance indicators (KPIs) in the 3-month pre- and post-certification period were compared between the three main training specialties. Results Three thousand one hundred fifty-seven endoscopy-related certifications were awarded to 1928 trainees from gastroenterology (52.3 %), GS (28.4 %) and NME (16.5  %) specialties. During the study period, certification numbers increased for all modalities and specialties, particularly NME trainees. For gastroscopy and colonoscopy, procedures-to-certification were lowest for GS (P < 0.001), whereas time-to-certification was consistently shortest in NMEs (P < 0.001). A post-certification reduction in mean cecal intubation rate (95.2 % to 93.8 %, P < 0.001) was observed in colonoscopy, and D2 intubation (97.6 % to 96.2 %, P < 0.001) and J-maneuver (97.3 % to 95.8 %, P < 0.001) in gastroscopy. Overall, average pre- and post-certification KPIs still exceeded national minimum standards. There was an increase in PDR for NMEs after provisional colonoscopy certification but a decrease in PDR for GS trainees after sigmoidoscopy and full colonoscopy certification. Conclusion Despite variations among trainee specialties, average pre- and post-certification KPIs for certified trainees met national standards, suggesting that JAG certification is a transparent benchmark which adequately safeguards competency in endoscopy training.

IntroductionEndoscopists are now expected to perform polypectomy routinely. Colonic polypectomy varies in difficulty, depending on polyp morphology, size, location and access. The measurement of the degree of difficulty of polypectomy, based on polyp characteristics, has not previously been described. Objective To define the level of difficulty of polypectomy. Methods Consensus by nine endoscopists regarding parameters that determine the complexity of a polyp was achieved through the Delphi method. The endoscopists then assigned a polyp complexity level to each possible combination of parameters. A scoring system to measure the difficulty level of a polyp was developed and validated by two different expert endoscopists. Results Through two Delphi rounds, four factors for determining the complexity of a polypectomy were identified: size (S), morphology (M), site (S) and access (A). A scoring system was established, based on size (1-9 points), morphology (1-3 points), site (1-2 points) and access (1-3 points). Four polyp levels (with increasing level of complexity) were identified based on the range of scores obtained: level I (4-5), level II (6-9), level III (10-12) and level IV (>12). There was a high degree of interrater reliability for the polyp scores (interclass correlation coefficient of 0.93) and levels (κ=0.888). Conclusions The scoring system is feasible and reliable. Defining polyp complexity levels may be useful for planning training, competency assessment and certification in colonoscopic polypectomy. This may allow for more efficient service delivery and referral pathways.

No abstract

Data from this large retrospective multicentre European study strongly suggest the use of Permacol™ porcine collagen surgical implant to be safe and effective for complex abdominal wall repair. The recurrence rate was impacted by fascial closure.