P189 Should you be worried if a trainee is performing your colonoscopy?

IntroductionWhen undertaking colonoscopy training, the focus of the trainee is often on reaching the caecum. Optimal mucosal inspection and polyp detection can lag behind. The most closely related quality indicator to reduced cancer mortality is adenoma detection rate (ADR). This study aims to disco...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Gut 2023-06, Vol.72 (Suppl 2), p.A151-A151
Hauptverfasser: Goodhew, Rebecca, Cama, Rigers, Ghouse, Shamira, Mehta, Ria, Adu-Darko, Michael, Wordsworth, Dominic, Poo, Stephanie, Fofaria, Rishi, Beg, Sabina
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:IntroductionWhen undertaking colonoscopy training, the focus of the trainee is often on reaching the caecum. Optimal mucosal inspection and polyp detection can lag behind. The most closely related quality indicator to reduced cancer mortality is adenoma detection rate (ADR). This study aims to discover whether the presence of a trainee has any impact on ADR.MethodsThis study included all colonoscopies performed between 1st January and 31st March 2019 at three NHS trusts, encompassing five endoscopy units. Screening procedures and planned polypectomies were excluded. Procedures were categorised according to whether a trainee was present or not. We compared sedation use, comfort score, withdrawal time (WT) and ADR between these two cohorts.ResultsA total of 3893 colonoscopies were included in this study, of which 591 (15.9%) were undertaken by trainees. of these 410 were for the investigation of symptoms, while 171 were for a surveillance indication. Demographics such as age and gender were comparable between the trainee and non-trainee cohorts. When comparing operating characteristics between the trainee and non-trainee cohorts average use of midazolam was 1.46 mg vs 1.40 mg respectively (p=0.64) and fentanyl 41.11 mcg vs 41.06 mcg (p=0.635), with 54.2% vs 43.8% (p
ISSN:0017-5749
1468-3288
DOI:10.1136/gutjnl-2023-BSG.258