"And DPSIR begat DAPSI(W)R(M)!" - A unifying framework for marine environmental management.

The marine environment is a complex system formed by interactions between ecological structure and functioning, physico-chemical processes and socio-economic systems. An increase in competing marine uses and users requires a holistic approach to marine management which considers the environmental, economic and societal impacts of all activities. If managed sustainably, the marine environment will deliver a range of ecosystem services which lead to benefits for society. In order to understand the complexity of the system, the DPSIR (Driver-Pressure-State-Impact-Response) approach has long been a valuable problem-structuring framework used to assess the causes, consequences and responses to change in a holistic way. Despite DPSIR being used for a long time, there is still confusion over the definition of its terms and so to be appropriate for current marine management, we contend that this confusion needs to be addressed. Our viewpoint advocates that DPSIR should be extended to DAPSI(W)R(M) (pronounced dap-see-worm) in which Drivers of basic human needs require Activities which lead to Pressures. The Pressures are the mechanisms of State change on the natural system which then leads to Impacts (on human Welfare). Those then require Responses (as Measures). Furthermore, because of the complexity of any managed sea area in terms of multiple Activities, there is the need for a linked-DAPSI(W)R(M) framework, and then the connectivity between marine ecosystems and ecosystems in the catchment and further at sea, requires an interlinked, nested-DAPSI(W)R(M) framework to reflect the continuum between adjacent ecosystems. Finally, the unifying framework for integrated marine management is completed by encompassing ecosystem structure and functioning, ecosystem services and societal benefits. Hence, DAPSI(W)R(M) links the socio-ecological system of the effects of changes to the natural system on the human uses and benefits of the marine system. However, to deliver these sustainably in the light of human activities requires a Risk Assessment and Risk Management framework; the ISO-compliant Bow-Tie method is used here as an example. Finally, to secure ecosystem health and economic benefits such as Blue Growth, successful, adaptive and sustainable marine management Responses (as Measures) are delivered using the 10-tenets, a set of facets covering all management disciplines and approaches.

Optimal resource allocation in colonoscopy: timing of follow-up colonoscopies in relation to adenoma detection rates.

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS: The assessment of indications for follow-up colonoscopy may help to improve the allocation of available endoscopy resources. The aim of this study was to assess the timing of early follow-up colonoscopy and surveillance utilization in relation to adenoma detection rate (ADR) at follow-up. METHODS: An assessment of the timing and yield of follow-up colonoscopies was performed in patients with non-inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) in a Dutch multicenter study. The primary outcome was the number of patients with a prior (index) colonoscopy. The necessity for follow-up procedures was assessed using the ADR. RESULTS: Of 4800 consecutive patients undergoing a colonoscopy, 1249 non-IBD patients had undergone an index colonoscopy. Of these, follow-up procedures were performed within 1 year in 27 % (331/1249). Excluding incomplete colonoscopy, incomplete polypectomy, or poor bowel preparation on index, the ADR on early follow-up was 4 % for symptomatic and 26 % for asymptomatic patients. Among the asymptomatic patients with a follow-up colonoscopy at > 1 year (n = 463), an ADR of 23 % (108/463) was found. In 27 % of these patients, the observed surveillance intervals were in accordance with American Gastroenterological Association (AGA) surveillance recommendations; 60 % were classified as over-utilization and 13 % as under-utilization according to the AGA. Optimal utilization follow-up colonoscopies had higher ADRs on follow-up compared with over-utilized procedures (31 % vs. 17 %; P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Follow-up colonoscopy in symptomatic patients within a year has limited value in terms of adenoma detection. A considerable proportion of surveillance colonoscopies are performed too early according to current guidelines, resulting in low detection rates. Both aspects can be targeted for optimal usage in endoscopic capacity.

Benchmarking patient experiences in colonoscopy using the Global Rating Scale.

INTRODUCTION: The Global Rating Scale (GRS) is a quality assurance program that was developed in England to assess patient-centered care in endoscopy. The aim of the current study was to evaluate patient experiences of colonoscopy using the GRS in order to compare different departments and to provide benchmarks. The study also evaluated factors associated with patient satisfaction. METHODS: A GRS questionnaire was used both before and after the procedure in outpatients undergoing colonoscopy. The questionnaire assessed the processes associated with the colonoscopy, from making the appointment up until discharge. Mean values and ranges of 12 endoscopy departments were calculated together with P values in order to assess heterogeneity. RESULTS: In total, 1904 pre-procedure and 1532 (80 %) post-procedure questionnaires were returned from 12 endoscopy departments. The mean time patients had to wait for their procedure was 4.3 weeks (range 3.1 - 5.8 weeks), and 54 % (range 35 - 64 %; P < 0.001) reported being given a choice of appointment dates/times. Discomfort during colonoscopy was reported by 20 % (range 8 - 40 %; P < 0.001). Recovery room privacy was satisfactory for 76 % of patients (range 66 - 90 %; P < 0.05). The majority of patients reported being sufficiently informed about what to do in case of problems after discharge (79 %, range 43 - 98 %; P < 0.001), and 85 % of individuals stated that they would be willing to repeat the colonoscopy procedure (range 72 - 92 %; P < 0.001). Factors associated with a decreased willingness to return were the burdensome bowel preparation (odds ratio [OR] = 0.25; P < 0.001), "rushing staff" attitude (OR = 0.57; P < 0.05), low acceptance of the procedure (OR = 0.42; P < 0.01), and more discomfort than expected (OR = 0.54; P < 0.05). CONCLUSION: Overall patient experiences with colonoscopy were satisfactory, but they also showed considerable variation. This study shows that use of a GRS patient questionnaire is feasible in the Dutch endoscopy setting for the assessment of patient experience. The significant variability between endoscopy units can be used to benchmark services and enable shortcomings to be identified.

Quality assurance in the endoscopy unit: the view of endoscopy personnel.

INTRODUCTION: Quality of health services depend on the entire medical team. A supportive team culture and effective leadership is required for successful quality assurance (QA). The opinion of endoscopy personnel towards QA is unknown, while they have to collaborate in many quality projects. METHODS: A survey was sent to all endoscopy nurses, assistants and managers. It focused on the implementation of a QA programme. Further, a team assessment was included, focusing on leadership and team functioning, using scores on 5-point Likert scales, with 1 being a very positive opinion, and 5 being a very negative opinion towards the item. RESULTS: 294 persons completed the questionnaire (44%). 87% expressed a positive attitude towards a QA programme, and 54% thought that the implementation of a nationwide QA programme for endoscopy would be feasible. Positive effects of QA were expected on publicity (62%) and overall quality (70%). Most important QA aspects were aftercare (97%) and patient experiences (96%). Concerns were raised about the time investment (18%) and disclosure of results towards media (24%). Team assessment showed good scores on `team working' with a mean score of 1.97. Lower scores were given to the `wider organization' (3.00) and `team process' (2.42). CONCLUSION: Endoscopy personnel have a positive attitude towards a QA programme. Besides, the team culture and its leadership are ready for the implementation of a QA programme. Efforts should be made to improve team processes and the relation with the wider organisation to ensure an optimal team culture, aimed at quality improvement.

Systematic literature review and pooled analyses of risk factors for finding adenomas at surveillance colonoscopy.

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIM: Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening guidelines recommend surveillance after polypectomy. There is variation in the surveillance intervals that are being advised. This variation also affects adherence. Surveillance intervals need to be based on risk factors at index. We therefore aimed to systematically review risk factors of adenoma findings at surveillance colonoscopy. METHODS: A systematic literature search was performed up to September 2009. Studies that reported on follow-up colonoscopy findings with stratification for index characteristics were included. Pooled relative risks (RR) were calculated using random effects models, and heterogeneity was determined by means of the I2-statistic. RESULTS: A total of 27 studies met the inclusion criteria. The most important risk factors for adenoma findings were the presence on index colonoscopy of the following: advanced adenomas (RR: 1.81), ≥ 3 adenomas (RR: 1.64), size ≥ 10 mm (RR: 1.66), and age ≥ 60 years (RR: 1.65). The presence of villous adenomas, high grade dysplasia, proximal adenomas, and male gender were associated with less profound increases in RR. Marked variation in study design and substantial heterogeneity between studies was observed. CONCLUSIONS: Convincing evidence exists that patients with advanced adenomas, ≥ 3 adenomas, adenomas ≥ 10 mm, or age ≥ 60 years have an increased risk of adenoma recurrence. The evidence for other baseline findings for an increased risk of adenoma recurrence is inconclusive. Marked variation and consistently lower RRs in studies of medium or low quality emphasize the necessity for well performed and well reported studies. Given the high impact of surveillance on patients and service providers, there is need for further assessment of the risk(s) of adenoma recurrence.

Screening for colorectal cancer: comparison of perceived test burden of guaiac-based faecal occult blood test, faecal immunochemical test and flexible sigmoidoscopy.

BACKGROUND: Perceived burden of colorectal cancer (CRC) screening is an important determinant of participation in subsequent screening rounds and therefore crucial for the effectiveness of a screening programme. This study determined differences in perceived burden and willingness to return for a second screening round among participants of a randomised population-based trial comparing a guaiac-based faecal occult blood test (gFOBT), a faecal immunochemical test (FIT) and flexible sigmoidoscopy (FS) screening. METHODS: A representative sample of the Dutch population (aged 50-74years) was randomised to be invited for gFOBT, FIT and FS screening. A random sample of participants of each group was asked to complete a questionnaire about test burden and willingness to return for CRC screening. RESULTS: In total 402/481 (84%) gFOBT, 530/659 (80%) FIT and 852/1124 (76%) FS screenees returned the questionnaire. The test was reported as burdensome by 2.5% of gFOBT, 1.4% of FIT and 12.9% of FS screenees (comparing gFOBT versus FIT p=0.05; versus FS p<0.001). In total 94.1% of gFOBT, 94.0% of FIT and 83.8% of FS screenees were willing to attend successive screening rounds (comparing gFOBT versus FIT p=0.84; versus FS p<0.001). Women reported more burden during FS screening than men (18.2% versus 7.7%; p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: FIT slightly outperforms gFOBT with a lower level of reported discomfort and overall burden. Both FOBTs are better accepted than FS screening. All three tests have a high level of acceptance, which may affect uptake of subsequent screening rounds and should be taken into consideration before implementing a CRC screening programme.

Risk of colorectal carcinoma in post-liver transplant patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Liver transplant patients (LTx) have an increased risk for developing de novo malignancies, but for colorectal cancer (CRC) this risk is less clear. We aimed to determine whether the CRC risk post-LTx was increased. A systematic search was performed in MEDLINE and Cochrane databases to identify studies published between 1986 and 2008 reporting on the risk of CRC post-LTx. The outcomes were (1) CRC incidence rate (IR per 100,000 person-years (PY)) compared to a weighted age-matched control population using SEER and (2) relative risk (RR) for CRC compared to the general population. If no RR data were available, the RR was estimated using SEER. Twenty-nine studies were included. The overall post-LTx IR was 119 (95% CI 88-161) per 100,000 PY. The overall RR was 2.6 (95% CI 1.7-4.1). The non-primary sclerosing cholangitis (PSC) IR was 129 per 100,000 PY (95% CI 81-207). Compared to SEER (71 per 100,000 PY), the non-PSC RR was 1.8 (95% CI 1.1-2.9). In conclusion, the overall transplants and the subgroup non-PSC transplants have an increased CRC risk compared to the general population. However, in contrast to PSC, non-PSC transplants do not need an intensified screening strategy compared to the general population until a prospective study further defines recommendations.

Guidelines for seagrass restoration: importance of habitat selection and donor population, spreading of risks, and ecosystem engineering effects.

Large-scale losses of seagrass beds have been reported for decades and lead to numerous restoration programs. From worldwide scientific literature and 20 years of seagrass restoration research in the Wadden Sea, we review and evaluate the traditional guidelines and propose new guidelines for seagrass restoration. Habitat and donor selection are crucial: large differences in survival were found among habitats and among donor populations. The need to preferably transplant in historically confirmed seagrass habitats, and to collect donor material from comparable habitats, were underlined by our results. The importance of sufficient genetic variation of donor material and prevention of genetic isolation by distance was reviewed. The spreading of risks among transplantation sites, which differed in habitat characteristics (or among replicate sites), was positively evaluated. The importance of ecosystem engineering was shown in two ways: seagrass self-facilitation and facilitation by shellfish reefs. Seagrass self-facilitative properties may require a large transplantation scale or additional measures.

Marine monitoring: Its shortcomings and mismatch with the EU Water Framework Directive's objectives.

The main goal of the EU Water Framework Directive (WFD) is to achieve good ecological status across European surface waters by 2015 and as such, it offers the opportunity and thus the challenge to improve the protection of our coastal systems. It is the main example for Europe's increasing desire to conserve aquatic ecosystems. Ironically, since c. 1975 the increasing adoption of EU directives has been accompanied by a decreasing interest of, for example, the Dutch government to assess the quality of its coastal and marine ecosystems. The surveillance and monitoring started in NL in 1971 has declined since the 1980s resulting in a 35% reduction of sampling stations. Given this and interruptions the remaining data series is considered to be insufficient for purposes other than trend analysis and compliance. The Dutch marine managers have apparently chosen a minimal (cost-effective) approach despite the WFD implicitly requiring the incorporation of the system's 'ecological complexity' in indices used to evaluate the ecological status of highly variable systems such as transitional and coastal waters. These indices should include both the community structure and system functioning and to make this really cost-effective a new monitoring strategy is required with a tailor-made programme. Since the adoption of the WFD in 2000 and the launching of the European Marine Strategy in 2002 (and the recently proposed Marine Framework Directive) we suggest reviewing national monitoring programmes in order to integrate water quality monitoring and biological monitoring and change from 'station oriented monitoring' to 'basin or system oriented monitoring' in combination with specific 'cause-effect' studies for highly dynamic coastal systems. Progress will be made if the collected information is integrated and aggregated in valuable tools such as structure- and functioning-oriented computer simulation models and Decision Support Systems. The development of ecological indices integrating community structure and system functioning, such as in Ecological Network Analysis, are proposed to meet a cost-effective approach at the national level and full assessment of the ecosystem status at the EU level. The WFD offers the opportunity to re-consider and re-invest in environmental research and monitoring. Using examples from the Netherlands and, to a lesser extent, the United Kingdom, the present paper therefore reviews marine monitoring and marine environmental research in combination and in the light of such major policy initiatives such as the WFD.