Discussion

EUS and ERCP are aerosol-generating procedures and therefore considered high risk for COVID-19 transmission. The ethos of our endoscopy unit during the pandemic was to ensure the utmost safety for patients and staff. At the peak of the COVID-19 pandemic, the BSG issued guidance around use of enhanced PPE for these procedures.6 The addition of enhanced PPE to the standard leaded apron meant performing procedures was more challenging for all members of the team. Further, the air flow within the endoscopy rooms was changed to a negative pressure set-up to minimise risk of virus transmission. This markedly reduced the cooling in the procedure rooms resulting in mild dehydration and early fatigue of the team members. There were concerns among the PB endoscopists that this might lead to non-compliance with the national KPIs for these procedures.

Early in the course of the pandemic, the endoscopy team were on a steep learning curve having to deal with new ways of working and communicating using enhanced PPE during the procedures. Following consensus among the PB endoscopists, PB lists were rationalised and capacity was reduced to nine points (each ERCP and EUS procedure was allocated three points) to mitigate issues around preparation for the list (detailed prelist huddle and staff donning and doffing time for PPE) and give adequate intraprocedural time (to deal with these complex procedures and complete an endoscopy report before patients left the room). With experience, the PB lists were rationalised to 12 points from mid-May 2020. The team prehydrated themselves, used lighter lead aprons and chose between respirators and single-use FFP3 masks based on individual preference. The whole intraroom team doffed and donned their PPE as one and took a planned break after two procedures. Other strategies included two PB endoscopists working in tandem and completion of prescription of preprocedure rectal non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and postprocedure fluids prior to commencement of lists. We developed a dedicated ‘runner’ for patient transport between the therapeutic room and the recovery unit. At the end of each endoscopy list, an in-depth team debrief was undertaken to reflect on lessons learnt and discuss ways of improving practice.

This is the first study looking at the impact of COVID-19 on KPIs and procedure-related complications in ERCP and EUS in the literature. A previous study by An et al 8 reported a retrospective series of 31 ERCP patients and commented on the safe use of PPE and room preparation for ERCP during the COVID-19 pandemic. However, they did not comment on the KPIs of ERCP and procedure-related complications. Our study confirms that the KPIs and procedure-related complication rates in our hospital during the COVID-19 pandemic are in keeping with published figures in the literature during non-COVID times.9 10 This will be reassuring for PB endoscopists as the perceived concerns around non-compliance with KPIs due to PPE have not been established in our study. We feel that strict consultant prioritisation of all ERCPs, robust patient work-up prior to listing for procedures, detailed prelist team huddle with rigorous planning for procedures and efficient team working were the key drivers for delivering a safe high-quality service during this pandemic.

A recent study by O’Grady et al 11 suggested that the number of ERCPs carried out in their organisation reduced during the COVID-19 pandemic (55 in 2020 compared with 87 in 2019) raising concerns that a significant number of patients with biliary disease remained undetected, untreated and potentially harmed. Our annual ERCP activity is circa 400 procedures; during the height (4.5 months) of COVID-19 pandemic we undertook 146 ERCP procedures. Thus, there was no reduction in the number of therapeutic ERCPs performed in our hospital compared with the usual non-COVID period. This level of activity was possible by increasing the number of therapeutic lists per week to compensate the number of reduction of procedures per list at the height of the pandemic. Our services continued to be receptive to patient needs and urgent indications for ERCP and EUS procedures.

We also looked at the COVID-19 swabbing practice from 18 May 2020 in our organisation and compared this against the BSG guidance. Seven patients (of which six were outpatients) did not have a swab prior to procedure during this period. These were all within the first 3 days of introduction of routine swabbing practice in our unit. This was felt to be due to incomplete role out of this new practice. All of these patients had a COVID-19 screening questionnaire prior to their procedure and none had a positive swab following their procedure. There were no COVID-19-positive swabs in the 28-day postprocedure period during the entire study period.

One nursing staff member, who regularly assisted in PB endoscopy room, was involved in a non-PB endoscopy procedure on a patient who was COVID-19 positive (not known at the time) and subsequently tested positive for COVID-19. No other nursing staff member assisting PB endoscopy room had a COVID-19 diagnosis (neither tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 PCR antigen test or antibody test). None of the PB endoscopy consultants or trainees developed COVID-19 symptoms or tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 PCR antigen COVID-19 antibody test. This suggests that a combination of a preprocedure-negative COVID-19 swab and wearing enhanced PPE by staff reduces the risk of transmission of COVID-19 during the PB endoscopy procedure.

We also looked at trainee involvement in ERCP and EUS procedures in our unit. There have been significant concerns about endoscopy training during this pandemic. Data from the National Endoscopy Database in the UK showed a 93% reduction in endoscopy training during the COVID-19 pandemic.4 This could be multifactorial—restructuring of the NHS workforce during the pandemic meant that trainees were redeployed to front-line clinical duties; limited supply of PPE at the beginning of the pandemic; rationalisation of endoscopy lists to essential procedures only; and reduced number of procedures in each list and consultant-delivered therapeutic services (to reduce procedure times and exposure to potential COVID-19) were some of the other factors that were thought to have contributed to the reduction in endoscopy training during the pandemic.12 In our study, we found that trainees were involved in 47% of the procedures which was far higher than the national figures. In our unit, trainees were allowed to perform the procedure within an agreed time frame depending on their stage of training. We felt that it was important for the trainees to undergo this experience as the challenges of COVID-19 may occur in some other form in the future.

The main strength of our study is robust data collection. All data were captured after reviewing the electronically accessible patient notes, radiology, pathology and endoscopy reporting systems. To ensure patients who were not admitted to other hospitals after procedure, we used the regional remote access webice systems to access patient information. All patients were followed up for at least 2 months following their procedure which allowed us to capture all procedure-related data including complications.

Our study has some limitations. First, this was a retrospective study. However, data collection was robust and comprehensive. Data were initially collected by ERCP specialist trainees and were crosschecked by an ERCP consultant. Second, this is a single-centre study. However, this study will hopefully act as a baseline for developing ERCP and EUS services during a pandemic by way of a further prospective multicentre study in the future. Finally, we did not contact the patients following their procedure which means we may have missed those who had developed mild symptoms but did not proceed with the COVID-19 swab test.

We conclude that a high-quality PB endoscopy service together with specialist registrar training can be delivered safely and effectively during the COVID-19 pandemic.