Abstract
Introduction
The medical literature describes disparity in colonoscopy performance. This randomised, controlled study aimed to characterise the impact of feedback on colonoscopy performance among gastroenterology (GI) trainees.
Methods
Gastroenterology trainees of similar experience levels who independently performed 581 colonoscopies over the study period were randomised to receive feedback/no feedback on their colonoscopy performance.
Results
Baseline colonoscopy performance was similar in both groups. Following feedback, caecal intubation improved by 10.5% (from 72.9 to 83.4%, p = 0.04) in the feedback group and declined by 6.1% (from 78 to 71.9%, p = 0.2) in the control group; polyp detection improved by 5.1% (from 12.9 to 18.0%, p = 0.2) in the feedback group and by 2.9% (from 16.7 to 19.6%, p = 0.5) in the control group.
Conclusions
Systematic feedback appears to enhance colonoscopy performance among GI trainees.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Harewood GC, Lieberman DA (2004) Colonoscopy practice patterns since introduction of medicare coverage for average-risk screening. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2(1):72–77
Lieberman DA, Weiss DG (2001) One-time screening for colorectal cancer with combined fecal occult-blood testing and examination of the distal colon. N Eng J Med 345(8):555–556
Bowles CJ, Leicester R, Romaya C et al (2004) A prospective study of colonoscopy practice in the UK today: are we adequately prepared for national colorectal cancer screening tomorrow? Gut 53(2):277–283
Barclay RL, Vicari JJ, Doughty AS, Johanson JJ, Greenlaw RL (2006) Colonoscopic withdrawal times and adenoma detection during screening colonoscopy. N Engl J Med 355(24):2533–2541
Bressler B, Paszat LF, Vinden C, Li C, He J, Rabenek L (2004) Colonoscopic miss rates for right-sided colon cancer: a population-based analysis. Gastroenterology 127(2):452–456
Simmons DT, Harewood GC, Baron TH et al (2006) Impact of endoscopist withdrawal speed on polyp yield: implications for optimal colonoscopy withdrawal time. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 24(6):965–971
Faigel DO, Pike IM, Baron TH (2006) Quality indicators for gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures: an introduction. Am J Gastroenterol 101(4):866–872
Rex DK, Bond JH, Winawer S (2002) Quality in the technical performance of colonoscopy and the continuous quality improvement process for colonoscopy: recommendations of the U.S. Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer. Am J Gastroenterol 97(6):1296–1308
Rex DK (2006) Quality in colonoscopy: cecal intubation first, then what? Am J Gastroenterol 101:732–734
Harewood GC, Petersen BT, Ott BJ (2006) Prospective assessment of the impact of feedback on colonoscopy performance. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 24(2):313–318
Bernstein C, Thorn M, Monsees K, Spell R, O’Connor JB (2005) A prospective study of factors that determine cecal intubation time at colonoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc 61(1):72–75
Harewood GC, Sharma VK, deGarmo P (2003) Impact of colonoscopy preparation quality on detection of suspected colonic neoplasia. Gastrointest Endosc 58(1):76–79
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Harewood, G.C., Murray, F., Winder, S. et al. Evaluation of formal feedback on endoscopic competence among trainees: the EFFECT trial. Ir J Med Sci 177, 253–256 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11845-008-0161-z
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11845-008-0161-z