The aim of this work was to quantify post-colonoscopy colorectal cancer (PCCRC) rates in National Health Service (NHS) Scotland using World Endoscopy Association guidelines, compare incidence between health boards and referral streams and explore comparisons in results with published data from other healthcare systems.

This is a population-based cohort study using NHS Scotland data between 2012 and 2018. All people undergoing colonoscopy between 2012 and 2018 and subsequently diagnosed as having bowel cancer up to 3 years after their investigation were included. The main outcome measures are national trends in the PCCRC rate at 3 years (PCCRC-3yr). with comparison between bowel screening and non-screening referral routes, board of referral and analysis of factors associated with occurrence.

The overall unadjusted PCCRC-3yr was 7.9% (7.4%-8.3%). There was no change in the annual rate over the 7-year study period. The PCCRC rate was lower for the Scottish Bowel Cancer Screening Programme (6.7% vs. 8.3%), but compared unfavourably with rates reported by the NHS England Bowel Cancer Screening Programme from an earlier time period. There was wide variation in rates between health boards of similar population size. Rates were higher in women, with increasing age and in patients with a history of inflammatory bowel disease or diverticular disease.

Despite advances in technology, there has been no improvement in the PCCRC rate in Scotland between 2012 and 2018. Rates in bowel screening colonoscopy are better than in nonscreening colonoscopy but compare unfavourably with NHS England, possibly as a result of less robust endoscopist selection and training. Quality improvement is required in colonoscopy in order to improve patient outcomes nationally, and to allow equitable access to higher-quality colonoscopy in different regions of the country.

Joint Advisory Group (JAG) certification in endoscopy is awarded when trainees attain minimum competency standards for independent practice. A national evidence-based review was undertaken to update standards for training and certification in flexible sigmoidoscopy (FS).

A modified Delphi process was conducted between 2019 and 2020 with multisociety representation from experts and trainees. Following literature review and Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations appraisal, recommendation statements on FS training and certification were formulated and subjected to anonymous voting to obtain consensus. Accepted statements were peer-reviewed by national stakeholders for incorporation into the JAG FS certification pathway.

In total, 41 recommendation statements were generated under the domains of: definition of competence (13), acquisition of competence (17), assessment of competence (7) and postcertification support (4). The consensus process led to revised criteria for colonoscopy certification, comprising: (A) achieving key performance indicators defined within British Society of Gastroenterology standards (ie, rectal retroversion >90%, polyp retrieval rate >90%, patient comfort <10% with moderate-severe discomfort); (B) minimum procedure count ≥175; (C) performing 15+ procedures over the preceding 3 months; (D) attendance of the JAG Basic Skills in Lower gastrointestinal Endoscopy course; (E) satisfying requirements for formative direct observation of procedural skill (DOPS) and direct observation of polypectomy skill (SMSA level 1); (F) evidence of reflective practice as documented on the JAG Endoscopy Training System reflection tool and (G) successful performance in summative DOPS.

The UK standards for training and certification in FS have been updated to support training, uphold standards in FS and polypectomy, and provide support to the newly independent practitioner.

In the UK, endoscopy certification is awarded when trainees attain minimum competency standards for independent practice. A national evidence-based review was undertaken to update and develop standards and recommendations for colonoscopy training and certification.

Under the oversight of the Joint Advisory Group (JAG), a modified Delphi process was conducted between 2019 and 2020 with multisociety expert representation. Following literature review and Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations appraisal, recommendation statements on colonoscopy training and certification were formulated and subjected to anonymous voting to obtain consensus. Accepted statements were peer reviewed by JAG and relevant stakeholders for incorporation into the updated colonoscopy certification pathway.

In total, 45 recommendation statements were generated under the domains of: definition of competence (13), acquisition of competence (20), assessment of competence (8) and postcertification support (4). The consensus process led to revised criteria for colonoscopy certification, comprising: (1) achieving key performance indicators defined within British Society of Gastroenterology standards (ie, unassisted caecal intubation rate >90%, rectal retroversion >90%, polyp detection rate >15%+, polyp retrieval rate >90%, patient comfort <10% with moderate-severe discomfort); (2) minimum procedure count 280+; (3) performing 15+ procedures over the preceding 3 months; (4) attendance of the JAG Basic Skills in Colonoscopy course; (5) terminal ileal intubation rates of 60%+ in inflammatory bowel disease; (6) satisfying requirements for formative direct observation of procedure skills (DOPS) and direct observation of polypectomy skills (Size, Morphology, Site, Access (SMSA) level 2); (7) evidence of reflective practice as documented on the JAG Endoscopy Training System reflection tool; (8) successful performance in summative DOPS.

The UK standards for training and certification in colonoscopy have been updated, culminating in a single-stage certification process with emphasis on polypectomy competency (SMSA Level 2+). These standards are intended to support training, improve standards of colonoscopy and polypectomy, and provide support to the newly independent practitioner.

Background and study aims  Virtual reality endoscopic simulation training has the potential to expedite competency development in novice trainees. However, simulation platforms must be realistic and confer face validity. This study aimed to determine the face validity of high-fidelity virtual reality simulation (EndoSim, Surgical Science, Gothenburg), and establish benchmark metrics to guide the development of a Simulation Pathway to Improve Competency in Endoscopy (SPICE). Methods  A pilot cohort of four experts rated simulated exercises (Likert scale score 1-5) and following iterative development, 10 experts completed 13 simulator-based endoscopy exercises amounting to 859 total metric values. Results  Expert metric performance demonstrated equivalence ( P  = 0.992). In contrast, face validity of each exercise varied among experts (median 4 (interquartile range [IQR] 3-5), P  < 0.003) with Mucosal Examination receiving the highest scores (median 5 [IQR 4.5-5], P  = 1.000) and Loop Management and Intubation exercises receiving the lowest scores (median 3 [IQR 1-3], P  < 0.001, P  = 0.004), respectively. The provisional validated SPICE comprised 13 exercises with pass marks and allowance buffers defined by median and IQR expert performance. Conclusions  EndoSim Face Validity was very good related to early scope handling skills, but more advanced competencies and translation of acquired clinical skills require further research within an established training program. The existing training deficit with superadded adverse effects of the COVID pandemic make this initiative an urgent priority.

Training and quality assurance in oesophagogastroduodenoscopy (OGD) is important to ensure competent practice. A national evidence-based review was undertaken to update and develop standards and recommendations for OGD training and certification.

Under the oversight of the Joint Advisory Group (JAG), a modified Delphi process was conducted with stakeholder representation from British Society of Gastroenterology, Association of Upper Gastrointestinal Surgeons, trainees and trainers. Recommendations on OGD training and certification were formulated following literature review and appraised using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation. These were subjected to electronic voting to achieve consensus. Accepted statements were incorporated into the updated certification pathway.

In total, 32 recommendation statements were generated for the following domains: definition of competence (4 statements), acquisition of competence (12 statements), assessment of competence (10 statements) and post-certification support (6 statements). The consensus process led to following certification criteria: (1) performing ≥250 hands-on procedures; (2) attending a JAG-accredited basic skills course; (3) attainment of relevant minimal performance standards defined by British Society of Gastroenterology/Association of Upper Gastrointestinal Surgeons of Great Britain and Ireland, (4) achieving physically unassisted D2 intubation and J-manoeuvre in ≥95% of recent procedures, (5) satisfactory performance in formative and summative direct observation of procedural skills assessments.

The JAG standards for diagnostic OGD have been updated following evidence-based consensus. These standards are intended to support training, improve competency assessment to uphold standards of practice and provide support to the newly-independent practitioner.

Background and study aims  Despite the high-risk nature of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP), a robust and standardized credentialing process to ensure competency before independent practice is lacking worldwide. On behalf of the Joint Advisory Group (JAG), we aimed to develop evidence-based recommendations to form the framework of ERCP training and certification in the UK. Methods  Under the oversight of the JAG, a modified Delphi process was conducted with stakeholder representation from the British Society of Gastroenterology, Association of Upper Gastrointestinal Surgeons, trainees and trainers. Recommendations on ERCP training and certification were formulated after formal literature review and appraised using the GRADE tool. These were subjected to electronic voting to achieve consensus. Accepted statements were peer-reviewed by JAG and relevant Specialist Advisory Committees before incorporation into the ERCP certification pathway. Results  In total, 27 recommendation statements were generated for the following domains: definition of competence (9 statements), acquisition of competence (8 statements), assessment of competence (6 statements) and post-certification support (4 statements). The consensus process led to the following criteria for ERCP certification: 1) performing ≥ 300 hands-on procedures; 2) attending a JAG-accredited ERCP skills course; 3) in modified Schutz 1-2 procedures: achieving native papilla cannulation rate ≥80%, complete bile duct clearance ≥ 70 %, successful stenting of distal biliary strictures ≥ 75 %, physically unassisted in ≥ 80 % of cases; 4) 30-day post-ERCP pancreatitis rates ≤5 %; and 5) satisfactory performance in formative and summative direct observation of procedural skills (DOPS) assessments. Conclusions  JAG certification in ERCP has been developed following evidence-based consensus to quality assure training and to ultimately improve future standards of ERCP practice.