Colonoscopy Quality Assurance and Maintenance of Competency Among Pediatric Gastroenterology Staff Members: A Canadian Center Experience
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction Colonoscopy quality indicators and maintenance of competency skills are relatively well established in the adult literature as compared to the pediatric gastroenterology. One of the suggested quality assurance measures is cecal intubation rate, which is suggested to be >90% in all colonoscopies as per American Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE) guidelines. Terminal ileum (TI) intubations are essentially required for diagnostic reasons in pediatric colonoscopies as compared to the screening reasons in adults. Maintenance of competency in pediatric colonoscopies has been described in the literature but in smaller studies contrary to the adult ones. The aims of this study are to compare our center's individual and group cecal intubation rates and compare it with the published literature, assess the group's terminal ileal intubation rates in comparison with the published literature, assess the most common reasons for failure to intubate the cecum and/or terminal ileum, and to assess whether the presence of a trainee affects the intubation rates and the duration of the procedure. Methods A retrospective chart review was performed on all pediatric patients (0-18 years). Colonoscopies performed over a two-year period at our single center were included in the study. Patients scheduled for sigmoidoscopy and with altered anatomy of their colon were excluded from the study. The endoscopy and pathology reports were reviewed to ascertain whether the cecum and TI were reached. Quality of bowel preparation and any other stated reasons for incompletion were obtained. Clinical charts were reviewed to obtain indication for colonoscopy. Skin-to-skin time, which is the time from starting to the finishing of the procedure, was recorded for each procedure. Results A total of 391 colonoscopies were performed during the two-year study period by six gastroenterologists. The number of colonoscopies per staff ranged from 57 to 89 procedures. The overall cecal intubation rate was observed to be 98.5% (range: 95.9%-98.9%). TI intubation rate was lower at a rate of 83.1% (range: 63.3%-92.1%). The main stated reason for the inability to attain cecum/TI was technical difficulty and poor bowel prep. Daytime colonoscopies were shorter (39.5 minutes vs 50.3 minutes) compared to after-hours ones and had a higher TI intubation rate (84.5% vs 62.5%). No complications were encountered in the procedures. Conclusion Despite relatively low volumes, cecal intubation rates are very high, exceeding suggested standards. TI intubation rates were low, and there was noted to be a high degree of variability. However, multicentric collaborative evaluations are required over a longer period of time to establish relevant parameters for quality assurance and competency in pediatric endoscopy.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".