Background and Aims
Polyps <1 cm are the most commonly found polyps during colonoscopy. Cold snare removal
is preferred given the significantly higher rate of incomplete resection associated
with piecemeal biopsy forceps resection. There are currently no standardized tools
to assess competence in cold snare polypectomy. This study aimed to develop and validate
a cold snare polypectomy assessment tool (CSPAT).
Methods
Experts in cold snare polypectomy used a Delphi method to develop the CSPAT. Metrics
with a greater than 85% agreement as being “important” or “very important” were included
in the CSPAT. The tool included evaluation of polyp inspection, positioning, appropriate
ensnarement of tissue to ensure a rim of normal tissue, tissue retrieval, and postpolypectomy
site inspection. Experts in cold snare polypectomy used the CSPAT to evaluate preselected
videos that were previously evaluated using the Direct Observation of Polypectomy
Skills (DOPyS) tool. Interobserver agreement was evaluated. CSPAT scores were compared
with DOPyS scores to assess content validity.
Results
Sixteen experts developed the 12-item CSPAT, and 13 experts reviewed 55 videos. There
was a moderate degree of agreement in 10 metrics (κ = .52-.59) and a substantial degree
of agreement (κ = .61-.63) in the other 2. There was a strong correlation between
the mean of individual metrics 1 to 12 compared with the global competence assessment
(ρ = .88, P < .001). There was a moderate correlation between the average overall DOPyS score
and the overall CSPAT competence score (ρ = .56, P < .001).
Conclusions
We have developed and validated a customized CSPAT that can be easily applied to video-based
assessments to assess competence in training and among practicing endoscopists.
Abbreviations:
CRC (colorectal cancer), CSPAT (cold snare polypectomy assessment tool), DOPyS (Direct Observation of Polypectomy Skills)To read this article in full you will need to make a payment
Purchase one-time access:
Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online accessOne-time access price info
- For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
- For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'
Subscribe:
Subscribe to Gastrointestinal EndoscopyAlready a print subscriber? Claim online access
Already an online subscriber? Sign in
Register: Create an account
Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect
References
- Colorectal cancer statistics, 2017.CA Cancer J Clin. 2017; 67: 177-193
- Colorectal cancer incidence patterns in the United States, 1974-2013.J Natl Cancer Inst. 2017; : 109
- Annual report to the nation on the status of cancer, 1975-2006, featuring colorectal cancer trends and impact of interventions (risk factors, screening, and treatment) to reduce future rates.Cancer. 2010; 116: 544-573
- Vital signs: colorectal cancer screening, incidence, and mortality—United States, 2002-2010.MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2011; 60: 884-889
- Long-term colorectal-cancer incidence and mortality after lower endoscopy.N Engl J Med. 2013; 369: 1095-1105
- Polyp size and advanced histology in patients undergoing colonoscopy screening: implications for CT colonography.Gastroenterology. 2008; 135: 1100-1105
- Incomplete polyp resection during colonoscopy—results of the Complete Adenoma Resection (CARE) Study.Gastroenterology. 2013; 144: 74-80
- Role of the cold biopsy technique in diminutive and small colonic polyp removal: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Gastrointest Endosc. 2016; 83: 508-515
- Analysis of colorectal cancer occurrence during surveillance colonoscopy in the dietary Polyp Prevention Trial.Gastrointest Endosc. 2005; 61: 385-391
- Interval cancer after total colonoscopy: results from a pooled analysis of eight studies.Gastroenterology. 2008; 134: 111-112
- Advances in CRC prevention: screening and surveillance.Gastroenterology. 2018; 154: 1970-1984
- Assessing colon polypectomy competency and its association with established quality metrics.Gastrointest Endosc. 2018; 87: 635-644
- Status of competency-based medical education in endoscopy training: a nationwide survey of US ACGME-accredited gastroenterology training programs.Am J Gastroenterol. 2015; 110: 956-962
- Gastroenterology trainees can easily learn histologic characterization of diminutive colorectal polyps with narrow band imaging (NBI).Am J Gastroenterol. 2012; 107: S807
- Diagnostic accuracy of narrow-band imaging and pit pattern analysis significantly improved for less-experienced endoscopists after an expanded training program.Gastrointest Endosc. 2010; 72: 127-135
- ASGE's assessment of competency in endoscopy evaluation tools for colonoscopy and EGD.Gastrointest Endosc. 2014; 79: 1-7
- The validity and reliability of a Direct Observation of Procedural Skills assessment tool: assessing colonoscopic skills of senior endoscopists.Gastrointest Endosc. 2012; 75: 591-597
- Global Assessment of Gastrointestinal Endoscopic Skills (GAGES): a valid measurement tool for technical skills in flexible endoscopy.Surg Endosc. 2010; 24: 1834-1841
- A prospective comparison of live and video-based assessments of colonoscopy performance.Gastrointest Endosc. 2018; 87: 766-775
- Impact of experience on self-assessment accuracy of clinical colonoscopy competence.Gastrointest Endosc. 2018; 87: 827-836
- Development and validation of a novel method for assessing competency in polypectomy: direct observation of polypectomy skills.Gastrointest Endosc. 2011; 73: 1232-1239
- Validation of a novel method for assessing competency in polypectomy.Gastrointest Endosc. 2012; 75: 568-575
Physicians RCo. New DOPS and DOPyS forms and certification criteria. Volume 2018, 2017. Available at: https://thejag.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/articles/115004038674-JETS-colonoscopy-application-criteria-and-process. Accessed January 30, 2018.
- Validity: on meaningful interpretation of assessment data.Med Educ. 2003; 37: 830-837
- An experimental application of the Delphi method to the use of experts.Manage Sci. 1963; 9: 458-467
- Consensus statements for management of Barrett's dysplasia and early-stage esophageal adenocarcinoma, based on a Delphi process.Gastroenterology. 2012; 143: 336-346
- Research electronic data capture (REDCap)—a metadata-driven methodology and workflow process for providing translational research informatics support.J Biomed Inform. 2009; 42: 377-381
- Physician assessment and management of complex colon polyps: a multicenter video-based survey study.Am J Gastroenterol. 2014; 109: 1312-1324
- Colorectal cancers soon after colonoscopy: a pooled multicohort analysis.Gut. 2014; 63: 949-956
American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases, American College of Gastroenterologists, American Gastroenterological Association et al. The gastroenterology core curriculum, third edition. Gastroenterology 2007;132:2012-8.
Article info
Publication history
Published online: March 04, 2019
Accepted:
February 2,
2019
Received:
October 1,
2018
Footnotes
DISCLOSURE: The following authors disclosed financial relationships relevant to this publication: T. Kaltenbach: Consultant for Olympus America and Aries Pharmaceutical. H. Pohl: Research grant recipient from Boston Scientific, US Endoscopy, and Aries/Cosmos Pharmaceuticals. A. Rastogi: Consultant for Olympus, Boston Scientific, Cook, and Medtronic; research grant recipient from Olympus. H. Hammad: Consultant for Olympus, Cook, and Medtronic. R. Soetikno: Consultant for Olympus. A. Shergill: Research grant recipient from Pentax. R. N. Keswani: Consultant for Boston Scientific, Medtronic, and Motus-GI. S. Wani: Consultant for Boston Scientific and Medtronic. All other authors disclosed no financial relationships relevant to this publication. Research support for this study was provided by ASGE Quality in Endoscopy Award COMPLETE Study, 2017.
Identification
Copyright
© 2019 by the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy
ScienceDirect
Access this article on ScienceDirectLinked Article
- Video-based assessments: a promising step in improving polypectomy competencyGastrointestinal EndoscopyVol. 89Issue 6
- PreviewAssessment is a critical component of endoscopic training, credentialing, and quality assurance. Evidence suggests significant variation in polypectomy competency among practicing endoscopists.1 The consequences of subpar polypectomy and incomplete resection are significant and include postcolonoscopy colorectal cancer.2 As such, polypectomy quality, although not currently highlighted in major society guidelines, is likely to become an important endoscopy quality metric in years to come. To properly measure quality, identify practice gaps, and highlight areas for improvement, robust assessment processes are necessary.
- Full-Text
- Preview
