The London OMED position statement for credentialing and quality assurance in digestive endoscopy

The goal of every clinician (and the health systems in which they work) is to provide high quality medical services. In the case of digestive endoscopy, this means that use of the procedures should adhere to accepted indications, that accurate diagnoses are made, that successful therapies are applied, and that all this is done while maximizing the patient’s comfort, and minimizing the risks. The quality assurance process includes granting of privileges only to competent practitioners, ensuring ongoing competence through re-privileging, and engaging in quality improvement through measurement and remediation. Quality is an issue for everyone involved in the endoscopy process, not just the endoscopists.

As a service to the world community, the leadership of OMED (Organisation Mondiale d’Endoscopie Digestive, World Organisation of Digestive Endoscopy) charged Dr. Douglas Faigel and Dr. Peter Cotton to chair a working party of interested endoscopists from a wide range of countries and organizations to develop universal guidelines to assist healthcare institutions in ensuring that the highest quality care be given. The working party met twice, and conducted most of its deliberations by correspondence and conference calls. All known national and international organizations supporting the practice of endoscopy were interrogated for information on relevant topics; many already have extensive publications [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7]. A list of members of the working party is given in the Appendix.

It is well recognized that resources vary around the world, and that digestive endoscopy is regulated in different ways in different countries (and very little in some), so that the application of these guidelines will vary enormously in extent and method. However, we believe that the recommendations can provide a useful platform from which all systems can move forward. These guidelines should also be used by educational organizations throughout the world to set goals in their continuing medical education programs, thus improving the quality of endoscopy worldwide.

This review does not include discussion of the issues involved in training and credentialing nonphysician endoscopists, which is becoming more common, especially in Britain. However, the same general principles should apply.

References

• 1 Faigel D O, Baron T H, Lewis B. et al .Ensuring competence in endoscopy. ASGE Press http://Awww.asge.org/nspages/practice/patientcare/competence.pdf
• 2 Barton R. Accrediting competence in colonoscopy: validity and reliability of the UK Joint Advisory Group/NHS Bowel Cancer Screening Programme Accreditation Assessment.  Gastrointest Endosc. 2008;  67 AB77
• 3 Dominitiz J A, Ikenberry S A, Andersomn M A. et al . Renewal of and proctoring for endoscopic privileges.  Gastrointest Endosc. 2008;  67 10-16
• 4 Eisen G M, Baron T H, Dominitz J A. et al . Methods of granting hospital privileges to perform gastrointestinal endoscopy.  Gastrointest Endosc. 2002;  55 780-783
• 5 Armstrong D, Enns R, Ponich T. et al . Canadian credentialing guidelines for endoscopic privileges: an overview.  Can J Gastroenterol. 2007;  21 797-801
• 6 Bjorkman D J, Popp J W. Measuring the quality of endoscopy.  Gastrointest Endosc. 2006;  63 S1-S2
• 7 Faigel D O, Pike M, Baron T H. et al . Quality indicators for endoscopic procedures: an introduction.  Gastrointest Endosc. 2006;  63 S3-S9 Am J Gastroenterol. 2006;  101 866-872
• 8 Cohen J, Cohen S A, Vora K C. et al . Multicenter, randomized, controlled trial of virtual-reality simulator training in acquisition of competency in colonoscopy.  Gastrointest Endosc. 2006;  64 361-368
• 9 Ritter E M, McCluskey D A, Gallagher A G. et al . Perceptual, visuospatial, and psychomotor abilities correlate with duration of training required on a virtual-reality flexible endoscopy simulator.  Am J Surg. 2006;  192 379-384
• 10 European Board of Gastroenterology .The blue book 2008. http://www.eubog.org/docs/Blue_Book.pdf
• 11 Froehlich F, Repond C, Mullhaupt B. et al . Is the diagnostic yield of upper GI endoscopy improved by the use of explicit panel-based appropriateness criteria?.  Gastrointest Endosc. 2000;  52 333-341
• 12 De Bosset V, Froehlich F, Rey J P. et al . Do explicit appropriateness criteria enhance the diagnostic yield of colonoscopy?.  Endoscopy. 2002;  34 360-368
• 13 Balaguer F, Llach J, Castells A. et al . The European panel on the appropriateness of gastrointestinal endoscopy guidelines colonoscopy in an open-access endoscopy unit: a prospective study.  Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2005;  21 609-613
• 14 Morini S, Hassan C, Meucci G. et al . Diagnostic yield of open access colonoscopy according to appropriateness.  Gastrointest Endosc. 2001;  54 175-179
• 15 Bersani G, Rossi A, Ricci G. et al . Do ASGE guidelines for the appropriate use of colonoscopy enhance the probability of finding relevant pathologies in an open access service?.  Dig Liver Dis. 2005;  37 609-614
• 16 Charles R J, Chak A, Cooper G S. et al . Use of open access in GI endoscopy at an academic medical center.  Gastrointest Endosc. 1999;  50 480-485
• 17 Vargo J J, Holub J L, Faigel D O. et al . Risk factors for cardiopulmonary events during propofol-mediated upper endoscopy and colonoscopy.  Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2006;  24 955-963
• 18 Sharma V K, Nguyen C C, Crowell M D. et al . A national study of cardiopulmonary unplanned events after GI endoscopy.  Gastrointest Endosc. 2007;  66 27-34
• 19 Langeron O, Masso E, Huraux C. et al . Prediction of difficult mask ventilation.  Anesthesiology. 2000;  92 1229-1236
• 20 Cotton P B, Eisen G, Vargo J. et al . A lexicon for adverse events; report of an ASGE workshop.  Gastrointest Endosc. 2009;  In press
• 21 Cohen J, Safdi M A, Deal S E. et al . Quality indicators for esophagogastroduodenoscopy.  Gastrointest Endosc. 2006;  63 S10-S15 Am J Gastroenterol. 2006;  101 886-891
• 22 Adler D G, Leighton J A, Davila R E. et al . ASGE guideline: The role of endoscopy in acute non-variceal upper-GI hemorrhage.  Gastrointest Endosc. 2004;  60 497-504
• 23 Ford A, Delaney B, Forman D. et al . Eradication therapy for peptic ulcer disease in Helicobacter pylori positive patients.  Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2004;  18 CD003840
• 24 Eisen G M, Baron T H, Dominitz J A. et al . The role of endoscopic therapy in the management of variceal hemorrhage.  Gastrointest Endosc. 2002;  56 618-620
• 25 Villanueva C, Colomo A, Aracil C, Guarner C. Current endoscopic therapy of variceal bleeding.  Best Pract Res Clin Gastroenterol. 2008;  22 261-278
• 26 Rex D K, Petrini J L, Baron T H. et al . Quality indicators for colonoscopy.  Gastrointest Endosc. 2006;  63 S16-S28 Am J Gastroenterol. 2006;  101 873-885
• 27 Rex D K, Bond J H, Winawer S. et al . Quality in the technical performance of colonoscopy and the continuous quality improvement process for colonoscopy: recommendations of the U.S. Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer.  Am J Gastroenterol. 2002;  97 1296-1308
• 28 Barclay R L, Vicari J J, Doughty A S. et al . Colonoscopic withdrawal times and adenoma detection during screening colonoscopy.  N Engl J Med. 2006;  355 2533-2541
• 29 Barclay R L, Vicari J J, Greenlaw R L. Effect of a time-dependent colonoscopic withdrawal protocol on adenoma detection during screening colonoscopy.  Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2008;  6 1091-1098
• 30 Harewood G C, Sharma V K, de Garmo P. Impact of colonoscopy preparation quality on detection of suspected colonic neoplasia.  Gastrointest Endosc. 2003;  58 76-79
• 31 Froelich F, Wietlisbach V, Gonvers J J. et al . Impact of colonic cleansing on quality and diagnostic yield of colonoscopy: the European Panel of Appropriateness of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy European Multicenter Study.  Gastrointest Endosc. 2005;  61 378-384
• 32 Baron T H, Petersen B T, Mergener K. et al . Quality indicators for endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography.  Gastrointest Endosc. 2006;  63 S29-S34 Am J Gastroenterol. 2006;  101 892-897
• 33 Jowell P S. Quantitative assessment of procedural competence: A prospective study of training in ERCP.  Ann Intern Med. 1996;  125 937-939
• 34 Schlup M M, Williams S M, Barbezat G O. ERCP: a review of technical competency and workload in a small unit.  Gastrointest Endosc. 1997;  46 48-52
• 35 Freeman M L, Guda N M. Prevention of post-ERCP pancreatitis: a comprehensive review.  Gastrointest Endosc. 2004;  59 845-864
• 36 American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy . Quality improvement of gastrointestinal endoscopy.  Gastrointest Endosc. 1999;  49 842-844. http://www.asge.org/WorkArea/showcontent.aspx?id=3388
• 37 Brotman M, Allen J I, Bickston S J. et al . AGA Task Force on Quality in Practice: a national overview and implications for GI practice.  Gastroenterology. 2005;  129 361-369
• 38 Johanson J F, Schmitt C M, Deas T M. et al . Quality and outcomes assessment in gastrointestinal endoscopy.  Gastrointest Endosc. 2000;  52 827-830
• 39 Multi-society guidelines for reprocessing flexible gastrointestinal endoscopes.  Gastrointest Endosc. 2003;  58 1-8. http://www.asge.org/WorkArea/showcontent.aspx?id=3376
• 40 World Gastroenterology Organisation-OMGE and Organisation Mondiale d’Endoscopie Digestif (OMED) .WGO-OMGE and OMED practice guideline: Endoscope disinfection. http://www.omed.org/downloads/pdf/guidelines/wgo_omed_endoscope_disinfection.pdf
• 41 American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy .ASGE Endoscopy Unit Recognition Program. http://www.asge.org/ITTIndex.aspx?id=6254
• 42 Joint Advisory Group on Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (JAG) .The Global Rating Scale. http://www.grs.nhs.uk