Authors
partly in helping individual units construct patient information and consent forms. It will be useful in creating audit standards for units, for individual trainees and established endoscopists. I would like the report to be used in a highly constructive manner to help improve the quality assurance of endoscopy. The JAG has quality assured .250 endoscopy units for training and this has been credible as JAG represents all the relevant stakeholders (the Royal Colleges, Specialist Societies, nurses, etc). It is now appropriate to widen the JAG remit beyond training standards to one of quality assurance for the endoscopy service. This has already effectively happened for units undertaking colon cancer screening colonoscopy in England where a successful JAG accreditation visit is a mandatory requirement. The JAG is in the ideal quality assurance body for all endoscopy units, irrespective of whether or not they contribute to the screening programme. Quality assurance needs auditable standards and ''complications of endoscopy'' is an excellent text from which to develop safety standards. Working party reports like this one, are powerful tools in our quest to maintain and improve quality, we should use them to their greatest potential.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Kenneth E.L. McColl (2007) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 3 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: