JAG consensus statements for training and certification in colonoscopy.

Introduction: In the UK, endoscopy certification is awarded when trainees attain minimum competency standards for independent practice. A national evidence-based review was undertaken to update and develop standards and recommendations for colonoscopy training and certification. Methods: Under the oversight of the Joint Advisory Group (JAG), a modified Delphi process was conducted between 2019 and 2020 with multisociety expert representation. Following literature review and Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations appraisal, recommendation statements on colonoscopy training and certification were formulated and subjected to anonymous voting to obtain consensus. Accepted statements were peer reviewed by JAG and relevant stakeholders for incorporation into the updated colonoscopy certification pathway. Results: In total, 45 recommendation statements were generated under the domains of: definition of competence (13), acquisition of competence (20), assessment of competence (8) and postcertification support (4). The consensus process led to revised criteria for colonoscopy certification, comprising: (1) achieving key performance indicators defined within British Society of Gastroenterology standards (ie, unassisted caecal intubation rate >90%, rectal retroversion >90%, polyp detection rate >15%+, polyp retrieval rate >90%, patient comfort <10% with moderate-severe discomfort); (2) minimum procedure count 280+; (3) performing 15+ procedures over the preceding 3 months; (4) attendance of the JAG Basic Skills in Colonoscopy course; (5) terminal ileal intubation rates of 60%+ in inflammatory bowel disease; (6) satisfying requirements for formative direct observation of procedure skills (DOPS) and direct observation of polypectomy skills (Size, Morphology, Site, Access (SMSA) level 2); (7) evidence of reflective practice as documented on the JAG Endoscopy Training System reflection tool; (8) successful performance in summative DOPS. Conclusion: The UK standards for training and certification in colonoscopy have been updated, culminating in a single-stage certification process with emphasis on polypectomy competency (SMSA Level 2+). These standards are intended to support training, improve standards of colonoscopy and polypectomy, and provide support to the newly independent practitioner.

JAG consensus statements for training and certification in flexible sigmoidoscopy.

Introduction: Joint Advisory Group (JAG) certification in endoscopy is awarded when trainees attain minimum competency standards for independent practice. A national evidence-based review was undertaken to update standards for training and certification in flexible sigmoidoscopy (FS). Methods: A modified Delphi process was conducted between 2019 and 2020 with multisociety representation from experts and trainees. Following literature review and Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations appraisal, recommendation statements on FS training and certification were formulated and subjected to anonymous voting to obtain consensus. Accepted statements were peer-reviewed by national stakeholders for incorporation into the JAG FS certification pathway. Results: In total, 41 recommendation statements were generated under the domains of: definition of competence (13), acquisition of competence (17), assessment of competence (7) and postcertification support (4). The consensus process led to revised criteria for colonoscopy certification, comprising: (A) achieving key performance indicators defined within British Society of Gastroenterology standards (ie, rectal retroversion >90%, polyp retrieval rate >90%, patient comfort <10% with moderate-severe discomfort); (B) minimum procedure count ≥175; (C) performing 15+ procedures over the preceding 3 months; (D) attendance of the JAG Basic Skills in Lower gastrointestinal Endoscopy course; (E) satisfying requirements for formative direct observation of procedural skill (DOPS) and direct observation of polypectomy skill (SMSA level 1); (F) evidence of reflective practice as documented on the JAG Endoscopy Training System reflection tool and (G) successful performance in summative DOPS. Conclusion: The UK standards for training and certification in FS have been updated to support training, uphold standards in FS and polypectomy, and provide support to the newly independent practitioner.

Joint ACPGBI and The Duke's Club statement on colonoscopy training.

Colorectal surgeons across the UK currently undertake a large proportion of routine diagnostic and therapeutic colonoscopy in most NHS Trusts [1]. Meanwhile, the new UK General Surgical curriculum now includes an indicative requirement of 200 diagnostic colonoscopies for surgical trainees who have declared a colorectal subspecialty interest (hereafter termed 'colorectal trainees'), indicating the JCST's (Joint Committee on Surgical Training) commitment to colonoscopy training. However, several studies have reported a marked deficiency in colonoscopy training opportunities and accreditation for surgical trainees compared with gastroenterology trainees [2-4].

British Society of Gastroenterology/Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland/Public Health England post-polypectomy and post-colorectal cancer resection surveillance guidelines.

These consensus guidelines were jointly commissioned by the British Society of Gastroenterology (BSG), the Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland (ACPGBI) and Public Health England (PHE). They provide an evidence-based framework for the use of surveillance colonoscopy and non-colonoscopic colorectal imaging in people aged 18 years and over. They are the first guidelines that take into account the introduction of national bowel cancer screening. For the first time, they also incorporate surveillance of patients following resection of either adenomatous or serrated polyps and also post-colorectal cancer resection. They are primarily aimed at healthcare professionals, and aim to address:Which patients should commence surveillance post-polypectomy and post-cancer resection?What is the appropriate surveillance interval?When can surveillance be stopped? two or more premalignant polyps including at least one advanced colorectal polyp (defined as a serrated polyp of at least 10 mm in size or containing any grade of dysplasia, or an adenoma of at least 10 mm in size or containing high-grade dysplasia); or five or more premalignant polyps The Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE II) instrument provided a methodological framework for the guidelines. The BSG's guideline development process was used, which is National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) compliant.two or more premalignant polyps including at least one advanced colorectal polyp (defined as a serrated polyp of at least 10 mm in size or containing any grade of dysplasia, or an adenoma of at least 10 mm in size or containing high-grade dysplasia); or five or more premalignant polyps The key recommendations are that the high-risk criteria for future colorectal cancer (CRC) following polypectomy comprise either:two or more premalignant polyps including at least one advanced colorectal polyp (defined as a serrated polyp of at least 10 mm in size or containing any grade of dysplasia, or an adenoma of at least 10 mm in size or containing high-grade dysplasia); or five or more premalignant polyps This cohort should undergo a one-off surveillance colonoscopy at 3 years. Post-CRC resection patients should undergo a 1 year clearance colonoscopy, then a surveillance colonoscopy after 3 more years.

A prospective randomized controlled trial of simple Bascom's technique versus Bascom's cleft closure for the treatment of chronic pilonidal disease.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to determine which of Bascom's simple techniques, Bascom's simple surgery or Bascom's cleft closure, is preferred in the management of moderate-severity pilonidal disease. METHODS: Fifty-five patients with chronic pilonidal disease were randomized to receive Bascom's simple surgery (n = 29) or cleft closure (n = 26) under local anesthetic. The primary end point was time to healing. Patients were followed up for a median of 3 years (range, .7-4 y). RESULTS: After Bascom's simple surgery, 5 of 29 patients did not heal and proceeded to cleft closure. The remaining patients healed at a median of 4 weeks (range, 3-35 wk). After cleft closure, 21 of 26 wounds healed primarily on removal of sutures at 10 to 13 days. The remaining 5 wounds healed at a median of 4.5 weeks (range, 2-5 wk). Fifty of 55 (91%) patients were contacted for follow-up evaluation, disease recurrence occurred in 2 of 24 after Bascom's simple surgery and in 0 of 26 after cleft closure. CONCLUSIONS: Cleft closure offers more predictable healing than Bascom's simple surgery, with less need for re-operation. Disease recurrence is more prevalent after Bascom's simple surgery.