Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Our journals
    • Clinical Medicine
    • Future Healthcare Journal
  • Subject collections
  • About the RCP
  • Contact us

Clinical Medicine Journal

  • ClinMed Home
  • Content
    • Current
    • Ahead of print
    • Archive
  • Author guidance
    • Instructions for authors
    • Submit online
  • About ClinMed
    • Scope
    • Editorial board
    • Policies
    • Information for reviewers
    • Advertising

User menu

  • Log in

Search

  • Advanced search
RCP Journals
Home
  • Log in
  • Home
  • Our journals
    • Clinical Medicine
    • Future Healthcare Journal
  • Subject collections
  • About the RCP
  • Contact us
Advanced

Clinical Medicine Journal

clinmedicine Logo
  • ClinMed Home
  • Content
    • Current
    • Ahead of print
    • Archive
  • Author guidance
    • Instructions for authors
    • Submit online
  • About ClinMed
    • Scope
    • Editorial board
    • Policies
    • Information for reviewers
    • Advertising

Review of the impact of the Joint Advisory Group on gastrointestinal endoscopy (JAG) on accreditation services and training

Keith Siau, John Green, Neil Hawkes, Raphael Broughton, Mark Feeney, Paul Dunckley, John Barton, John Stebbing and Siwan Thomas-Gibson
Download PDF
DOI: https://doi.org/10.7861/clinmedicine.19-2-s80
Clin Med March 2019
Keith Siau
AOn behalf of JAG, Royal College of Physicians, London, UK
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
John Green
BGastroenterology, Cardiff and Vale University Health Board, Cardiff, Wales, UK
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Neil Hawkes
CGastroenterology, Cwm Taf University Health Board, Llantrisant, Wales, UK
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Raphael Broughton
AOn behalf of JAG, Royal College of Physicians, London, UK
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Mark Feeney
DGastroenterology, South Devon Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust, Torquay, UK
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Paul Dunckley
EGastroenterology, Gloucestershire Royal Hospital, Gloucester, UK
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
John Barton
FNewcastle University Medicine Malaysia, Johor, Malaysia
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
John Stebbing
GGI Surgery, Royal Surrey County Hospital NHSFT, Guildford, UK
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Siwan Thomas-Gibson
HImperial College London, London, UK
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Info & Metrics
Loading

Aims

The Joint Advisory Group on gastrointestinal endoscopy (JAG) was initially established in 1994 to standardise endoscopy training across specialties. Over the last two decades, the position of JAG has evolved to meet its current role of quality assuring all aspects of endoscopy in the UK to provide the highest quality, patient-centred care. With support from national stakeholders, national quality improvement initiatives were implemented, leading to the achievement of notable milestones in endoscopy quality assurance (QA), particularly in the three areas of endoscopy training (JAG Endoscopy Training System (JETS) e-portfolio and certification in endoscopy), accreditation of endoscopy services (including the Global Rating Scale (GRS)), and accreditation of screening endoscopists. These developments have changed the landscape of UK practice, serving as an integrated model to promote excellence in endoscopy. This literature review aims to amalgamate published evidence supporting the impact of JAG on quality of care, services or training in endoscopy.

Methods

A systematic review was conducted in July 2017 through EMBASE, Ovid and PubMed to identify relevant publications and conferences abstracts over the last 10 years. The search strategy involved the combination of the following terms: (‘Joint Advisory Group’ or ‘JAG’ or ‘Global Rating Scale’ or ‘JETS e-portfolio’ or ‘DOPS’ or ‘DOPyS’ or ‘bowel screening’) AND (‘endoscopy’ or ‘colonoscopy’ or ‘polypectomy’ or ‘accreditation’). Studies were limited to those in English, with accompanying abstracts, and those published after January 2007. To enable summation of the literature search results, thematic analysis was used to summarise suitable publications into the following categories; a) quality of care, quality of service provision and quality of training.

Results

Eight-hundred and eighty-seven articles were screened, of which 118 publications (42 full papers and 76 conference abstracts) were included. Studies exploring quality of care (n=37) mainly comprised audits involving different endoscopic procedures against JAG standards. Studies identified included the 2011 national colonoscopy audit that showed significant advances in performance standards since the 1999 audit, which was partly attributed to the role of JAG. Thirty-one studies were relevant to quality of service, of which the majority were related to audits of service performance and implementation of the GRS, including the novel settings of the private sector, community endoscopy and international settings (via JAG International). Fifty studies referred to quality of training, which covered implementation of JETS, and international validation of direct observation of procedural skills (DOPS) and direct observation of polypectomy skills (DOPyS) assessment tools. Trainee surveys and international research based on JAG tools were also identified.

Conclusion

This review provides evidence which supports the impact of JAG initiatives on quality of care, service and training in UK endoscopy over the last decade, of which the majority have demonstrated a positive effect of JAG. The JAG-hosted National Endoscopy Database, currently under development, aims to revolutionise QA by exporting performance metrics from endoscopy reporting systems, and to auto-populate future iterations of JETS and GRS. This is likely to further extend JAG's influence as an international model for facilitating endoscopy QA.

Conflict of interest statement

None declared.

  • © Royal College of Physicians 2019. All rights reserved.
Back to top
Previous articleNext article

Article Tools

Download PDF
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Citation Tools
Review of the impact of the Joint Advisory Group on gastrointestinal endoscopy (JAG) on accreditation services and training
Keith Siau, John Green, Neil Hawkes, Raphael Broughton, Mark Feeney, Paul Dunckley, John Barton, John Stebbing, Siwan Thomas-Gibson
Clinical Medicine Mar 2019, 19 (Suppl 2) s80; DOI: 10.7861/clinmedicine.19-2-s80

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Share
Review of the impact of the Joint Advisory Group on gastrointestinal endoscopy (JAG) on accreditation services and training
Keith Siau, John Green, Neil Hawkes, Raphael Broughton, Mark Feeney, Paul Dunckley, John Barton, John Stebbing, Siwan Thomas-Gibson
Clinical Medicine Mar 2019, 19 (Suppl 2) s80; DOI: 10.7861/clinmedicine.19-2-s80
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Aims
    • Methods
    • Results
    • Conclusion
    • Conflict of interest statement
  • Info & Metrics

Related Articles

  • No related articles found.
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • No citing articles found.
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • Improving the care of inpatients who are homeless: why we need to ask ‘have you got somewhere safe to go when you leave hospital?’ and use the Homelessness Reduction Act 2017 ‘duty to refer’ process
  • The ‘CURE IT’ programme – introducing equity, removing barriers, and treating patients with hepatitis C close to home: the Queensland experience
  • A novel 2-week wait lung cancer pathway starting with a telephone consultation, with patient satisfaction survey results
Show more Health Services and Policy

Similar Articles

Navigate this Journal

  • Journal Home
  • Current Issue
  • Ahead of Print
  • Archive

Related Links

  • ClinMed - Home
  • FHJ - Home
clinmedicine Footer Logo
  • Home
  • Journals
  • Contact us
  • Advertise
HighWire Press, Inc.

Follow Us:

  • Follow HighWire Origins on Twitter
  • Visit HighWire Origins on Facebook

Copyright © 2021 by the Royal College of Physicians