P225 Using a standardised reporting proforma is associated with improved endoscopic assessment in UC

R. KADER1, P. Middleton2, O. Ahmad1, R. Dart3, J. McGuire1, G. Sebepos-Rogers1, J. Segal2, E. Shakweh2, M. Samaan4, Gastro London Investigative Network for Trainees (GLINT)

1Department of Gastroenterology, University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK, 2Department of Gastroenterology, Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, London, UK, 3Department of Gastroenterology, Royal Free NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK, 4Department of Gastroenterology, Guy’s and St Thomas’ NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK


Repeated endoscopic assessments are an essential part of ulcerative colitis (UC) disease management and current guidelines recommend the use of an endoscopic activity score, either the endoscopic Mayo score or Ulcerative Colitis Endoscopic Index of Severity (UCEIS) as treatment targets. These indices have prognostic value, with endoscopic healing associated with favourable short- and long-term outcomes. This multi-centre study aimed to assess the frequency of using endoscopic disease activity scores in UC patients undergoing lower GI endoscopy.


Lower GI endoscopy reports from patients with UC were retrospectively reviewed from 7 sites in London between April and October 2018. Endoscopy reports were assessed based on the BRIDGe endoscopic reporting criteria including the use of Mayo or UCEIS score. The comparison was made between site factors (specialist IBD centres/non-specialist centres, use of reporting proforma), endoscopist speciality (gastroenterology, surgery or nurse endoscopist), level of training (consultant, registrar or nurse endoscopist) and interest in IBD. Chi-squared was used to compare groups.


899 lower GI endoscopy reports were reviewed. Mayo or UCEIS was used in 51% of cases (453/899). The use of endoscopic scores were significantly higher in gastroenterologists than in surgeons and nurse endoscopists respectively (401/762 (53%) vs. 22/54 (41%) vs. 30/83 (36%)), and higher in registrar trainees than consultants and nurse endoscopists (175/251 (70%) vs. 248/565 (44%) vs. 30/83 (36%)) and in those with a specialist interest in IBD compared with those without (237/409 (58%) vs. 216/490 (44%), p < 0.0001). The use of endoscopic scores was more frequent in specialist IBD centres than in non-specialist centres (417/728 (58%) vs. 36/172 (21%), p < 0.001). One centre used a reporting proforma which was associated with a significantly higher frequency of score use compared with centres without a proforma (202/260 (78%) vs. 251/639 (39%), p < 0.0001).


Reporting of endoscopic disease activity using a standardised scoring system occurs in only half of cases from this large multi-centre cohort. Frequency of use is higher in specialist IBD centres and when performed by gastroenterology specialists. Endoscopy reports from a site that used a standardised reporting proforma were significantly more likely to include an endoscopic index as well as a range of other reporting items. This suggests, at least in part, that endoscopy reporting may be optimised by the introduction of a proforma. Integration of a standardised proforma into reporting software would target all endoscopists performing UC endoscopies regardless of speciality, site or IBD interest.