ABSTRACT
Background: The lack of comprehensive national data on endoscopy activity and workforce hampers strategic planning. The National Endoscopy Database (NED) provides a unique opportunity to address this in the UK. We evaluated NED to inform service planning, exploring opportunities to expand capacity to meet service demands. Design: Data on all procedures between 1 March 2019 and 29 February 2020 were extracted from NED. Endoscopy activity and endoscopist workforce were analysed. Results: 1 639 640 procedures were analysed (oesophagogastroduodenoscopy (OGD) 693 663, colonoscopy 586 464, flexible sigmoidoscopy 335 439 and endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography 23 074) from 407 sites by 4990 endoscopists. 89% of procedures were performed in NHS sites. 17% took place each weekday, 10% on Saturdays and 6% on Sundays. Training procedures accounted for 6% of total activity, over 99% of which took place in NHS sites. Median patient age was younger in the independent sector (IS) (51 vs 60 years, p<0.001). 74% of endoscopists were male. Gastroenterologists and surgeons each comprised one-third of the endoscopist workforce; non-medical endoscopists (NMEs) comprised 12% yet undertook 23% of procedures. Approximately half of endoscopists performing OGD (52%) or colonoscopies (48%) did not meet minimum annual procedure numbers. Conclusion: This comprehensive analysis reveals endoscopy workload and workforce patterns for the first time across both the NHS and the IS in all four UK nations. Half of all endoscopists perform fewer than the recommended minimum annual procedure numbers: a national strategy to address this, along with expansion of the NME workforce, would increase endoscopy capacity, which could be used to exploit latent weekend capacity.
ABSTRACT
Introduction: During COVID-19, the management of outpatient inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) changed from face-to-face (F2F) to telephone and video consultations across the UK. We surveyed patients with IBD and IBD healthcare professionals (HCPs) to evaluate the impact of this abrupt transition on patient and HCP satisfaction outcomes, including the barriers and enablers of this service. Methods: Patient satisfaction surveys were sent to patients who had a telephone consultation from May to July 2020. A second survey was sent to IBD HCPs across the UK. Questions from both surveys consisted of a mixture of multiple-choice options, ranking answers as well as short-answer questions. Results: 210 patients and 114 HCPs completed the survey. During COVID-19, there was a significantly greater use of telephone, video or a mixture of consultation. F2F consultations were consistently preferred by patients, with 50% of patients indicating they did not want the option of for video consultations. Patients were more likely to prefer a telephone consultation if they were stable and needed routine review. Significantly fewer HCPs (5.3%) intend to use F2F consultations alone, preferring the use of telephone (20.2%) or combinations of telephone/F2F (22.8%), telephone/video (4.4%) or combination of all three consultation types (34.2%). 63% indicated they intend to incorporate video consultations in the future. Conclusion: Telephone and video consultations need to be balanced proportionately with F2F clinics to achieve both patient and HCP satisfaction. Further research needs to be done to explore the use of video medicine in patients with IBD.