Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Multicenter Study
. 2022 Aug 1;5(8):e2229538.
doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2022.29538.

Association of Trainee Participation in Colonoscopy Procedures With Quality Metrics

Affiliations
Multicenter Study

Association of Trainee Participation in Colonoscopy Procedures With Quality Metrics

Michael Sey et al. JAMA Netw Open. .

Abstract

Importance: Trainees routinely participate in colonoscopy procedures, yet whether their involvement is positively or negatively associated with procedural quality is unknown because prior studies involved small number of trainees and/or supervisors, lacked generalizability, and/or failed to adjust for potential confounders.

Objective: To assess the association between trainee participation and colonoscopy quality metrics.

Design, setting, and participants: This multicenter population-based cohort study was conducted at 21 academic and community hospitals between April 1, 2017, and October 31, 2018, among consecutive adult patients undergoing colonoscopy. Procedures performed by endoscopists who did not supervise trainees were excluded. Statistical analysis was performed from April 3, 2017, to October 31, 2018.

Exposure: Participation by a trainee, defined as a resident or fellow enrolled in a gastroenterology or general surgery training program.

Main outcomes and measures: The primary outcome was the adenoma detection rate (ADR), and secondary outcomes were sessile serrated polyp detection rate (ssPDR), polyp detection rate (PDR), cecal intubation rate (CIR), and perforation rate.

Results: A total of 35 499 colonoscopies (18 989 women [53.5%]; mean [SD] patient age, 60.0 [14.1] years) were performed by 71 physicians (mean [SD] time in practice, 14.0 [9.3] years); 5941 colonoscopies (16.7%) involved trainees. There were no significant differences in the ADR (26.4% vs 27.3%; P = .19), CIR (96.7% vs 97.2%; P = .07), and perforation rate (0.05% vs 0.06%; P = .82) when trainees participated vs when they did not participate, whereas the the ssPDR (4.4% vs 5.2%; P = .009) and PDR (39.2% vs 42.0%; P < .001) were significantly lower when trainees participated vs when they did not. After adjustment for potential confounders, the ADR (risk ratio [RR], 0.97; 95% CI, 0.91-1.03; P = .30), PDR (RR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.93-1.04; P = .47), and CIR (RR, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.78-1.10; P = .38) were not associated with trainee participation, although the ssPDR remained significantly lower (RR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.64-0.98; P = .03).

Conclusions and relevance: This study suggests that trainee involvement during colonoscopy was associated with reduced ssPDR but not other colonoscopy outcome measures. Extra care should be exercised when examining the right colon when trainees are involved.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Conflict of Interest Disclosures: Dr Sey reported receiving personal fees from Ontario Health outside the submitted work. Dr Wilson reported receiving personal fees from Takeda and Fresenius Kabi outside the submitted work. Dr Jairath reported receiving personal fees from AbbVie, Alimentiv Inc, Amgen, Applied Strategic, Arena, Asahi Kasei Pharma, Asieris, AstraZeneca, BioJamp, Celgene/Bristol Myers Squibb, Celltrion, Eli Lilly, Ferring, F Hoffmann-La Roche, Flagship Pioneering, Fresenius Kabi, Galapagos, Genentech, Gilead, GSK, Janssen, Organon, Landos Biopharma, Metacrine, Mylan, Pandion, Pendopharm, Pfizer, Prometheus, Protagonist, Reistone, Sandoz, Second Genome, Sorriso, Takeda, Teva, Ventyx Biosciences, and Vividion outside the submitted work. No other disclosures were reported.

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Rex DK, Schoenfeld PS, Cohen J, et al. . Quality indicators for colonoscopy. Am J Gastroenterol. 2015;110(1):72-90. doi:10.1038/ajg.2014.385 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Rex DK, Boland CR, Dominitz JA, et al. . Colorectal cancer screening: recommendations for physicians and patients from the U.S. Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer. Am J Gastroenterol. 2017;112(7):1016-1030. doi:10.1038/ajg.2017.174 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Rees CJ, Gibson ST, Rutter MD, et al. . UK key performance indicators & quality assurance standards for colonoscopy. British Society of Gastroenterology. Accessed August 3, 2020. https://www.bsg.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/UK-Key-Performance-Ind...
    1. Kaminski MF, Thomas-Gibson S, Bugajski M, et al. . Performance measures for lower gastrointestinal endoscopy: a European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) quality improvement initiative. Endoscopy. 2017;49(4):378-397. doi:10.1055/s-0043-103411 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Armstrong D, Barkun A, Bridges R, et al. ; Canadian Association of Gastroenterology Safety and Quality Indicators in Endoscopy Consensus Group . Canadian Association of Gastroenterology consensus guidelines on safety and quality indicators in endoscopy. Can J Gastroenterol. 2012;26(1):17-31. doi:10.1155/2012/173739 - DOI - PMC - PubMed

Publication types