The management of patients with surgically incurable bowel cancer at presentation is controversial. The aims of treatment are to optimise quality of life and prolong survival. It has been believed that the most effective palliation is achieved by resection of the primary cancer in order to pre-empt future complications. This study reviews and compares the outcomes of patients with incurable bowel cancer managed by resection and non-resection strategies over a 7-year period in a single District General Hospital.

Background: The Global Rating Scale, defined by the Joint Advisory Group for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, requires monitoring of endoscopic performance indicators. There are known variations in colonoscopic performance, and investigation of factors causing this is needed. This study aimed to analyse the impact of endoscopist specialty and procedural volume on the quality of colonoscopy. Methods: Data collected prospectively from a UK hospital endoscopy service between June 2007 and January 2010 were analysed. The main endpoint was the adenoma detection rate (ADR). Secondary endpoints were polyp detection rate (PDR), reported caecal intubation rate (CIR) and reported complications. Multivariable binary regression models were built to adjust for confounding patient-level and endoscopist-level variation. Results: A total of 10 026 colonoscopies were included, with an overall ADR of 19·2 per cent, a CIR of 90·2 per cent and a perforation rate of 0·06 per cent. In univariable analyses, surgeons had a higher ADR and higher PDR, but lower CIR, compared with physicians. Surgeons had a significantly different case mix in terms of age, sex and indication for colonoscopy. After adjusting for this case mix in multivariable analysis, specialty was no longer a significant predictor of ADR; however, surgeons retained their higher PDR and physicians their higher CIR. Endoscopists accredited for screening and those performing more than 100 colonoscopies per year had a higher ADR. Conclusion: Adjusting for case mix, physicians and surgeons performed equally well in terms of ADR. Accreditation and a higher annual number of colonoscopies were more important factors in achieving quality standards.

Introduction: In 2009 the Department of Health instructed McKinsey & Company to provide advice on how commissioners might achieve world class National Health Service productivity. Asymptomatic inguinal hernia repair was identified as a potentially cosmetic procedure, with limited clinical benefit. The Birmingham and Solihull primary care trust cluster introduced a policy of watchful waiting for asymptomatic inguinal hernia, which was implemented across the health economy in December 2010. This retrospective cohort study aimed to examine the effect of a change in clinical commissioning policy concerning elective surgical repair of asymptomatic inguinal hernias. Methods: A total of 1,032 patients undergoing inguinal hernia repair in the 16 months after the policy change were compared with 978 patients in the 16 months before. The main outcome measure was relative proportion of emergency repair in groups before and after the policy change. Multivariate binary logistic regression was used to adjust the main outcome for age, sex and hernia type. Results: The period after the policy change was associated with 59% higher odds of emergency repair (3.6% vs 5.5%, adjusted odds ratio [OR]: 1.59, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.03–2.47). In turn, emergency repair was associated with higher odds of adverse events (4.7% vs 18.5%, adjusted OR: 3.68, 95% CI: 2.04–6.63) and mortality (0.1% vs 5.4%, p<0.001, Fisher’s exact test). Conclusions: Introduction of a watchful waiting policy for asymptomatic inguinal hernias was associated with a significant increase in need for emergency repair, which was in turn associated with an increased risk of adverse events. Current policies may be placing patients at risk.