Development and validation of an endoscopic submucosal dissection video assessment tool

Advanced Endoscopy: Future Training Perspectives and Tracks

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Since the introduction of ERCP and EUS in the 1980s, the field of advanced endoscopy has witnessed significant growth, necessitating formalized fellowship training to ensure competency and patient safety. This article reviews the history and development of Advanced Endoscopy Fellowship (AEF) training in North America, outlining current challenges such as variability in training standards, case volume, and faculty expertise.

RECENT FINDINGS

General gastroenterology fellowships with apprenticeship model training in advanced endoscopic procedures have been insufficient, prompting the establishment of Advanced Endoscopy Fellowship (AEF) programs across North America. There are emerging trends in interventional endoscopy training, such as competency-based education (CBE), simulation-based training (SBT), and video-based training (VBT). There are new pathways for specialized modular and robotic training and non-traditional routes for EUS and ERCP skill acquisition. Variability across AEF programs remains concerning. This highlights the need for expanded regulatory efforts by organizations like ASGE. Advanced endoscopy training continues to evolve with innovative educational models. However, addressing variability, resource constraints, and employment challenges will be essential to meet the expanding procedural demands of this field and improve patient outcomes.

Pediatric endoscopy: how can we improve patient outcomes and ensure best practices?

INTRODUCTION

Strategies to promote high-quality endoscopy in children require consensus around pediatric-specific quality standards and indicators. Using a rigorous guideline development process, the international Pediatric Endoscopy Quality Improvement Network (PEnQuIN) was developed to support continuous quality improvement efforts within and across pediatric endoscopy services.

AREAS COVERED

This review presents a framework, informed by the PEnQuIN guidelines, for assessing endoscopist competence, granting procedural privileges, audit and feedback, and for skill remediation, when required. As is critical for promoting quality, PEnQuIN indicators can be benchmarked at the individual endoscopist, endoscopy facility, and endoscopy community levels. Furthermore, efforts to incorporate technologies, including electronic medical records and artificial intelligence, into endoscopic quality improvement processes can aid in creation of large-scale networks to facilitate comparison and standardization of quality indicator reporting across sites.

EXPERT OPINION

PEnQuIN quality standards and indicators provide a framework for continuous quality improvement in pediatric endoscopy, benefiting individual endoscopists, endoscopy facilities, and the broader endoscopy community. Routine and reliable measurement of data, facilitated by technology, is required to identify and drive improvements in care. Engaging all stakeholders in endoscopy quality improvement processes is crucial to enhancing patient outcomes and establishing best practices for safe, efficient, and effective pediatric endoscopic care.

Peer evaluation and feedback for invasive medical procedures: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

There is significant variability in the performance and outcomes of invasive medical procedures such as percutaneous coronary intervention, endoscopy, and bronchoscopy. Peer evaluation is a common mechanism for assessment of clinician performance and care quality, and may be ideally suited for the evaluation of medical procedures. We therefore sought to perform a systematic review to identify and characterize peer evaluation tools for practicing clinicians, assess evidence supporting the validity of peer evaluation, and describe best practices of peer evaluation programs across multiple invasive medical procedures.

METHODS

A systematic search of Medline and Embase (through September 7, 2021) was conducted to identify studies of peer evaluation and feedback relating to procedures in the field of internal medicine and related subspecialties. The methodological quality of the studies was assessed. Data were extracted on peer evaluation methods, feedback structures, and the validity and reproducibility of peer evaluations, including inter-observer agreement and associations with other quality measures when available.

RESULTS

Of 2,135 retrieved references, 32 studies met inclusion criteria. Of these, 21 were from the field of gastroenterology, 5 from cardiology, 3 from pulmonology, and 3 from interventional radiology. Overall, 22 studies described the development or testing of peer scoring systems and 18 reported inter-observer agreement, which was good or excellent in all but 2 studies. Only 4 studies, all from gastroenterology, tested the association of scoring systems with other quality measures, and no studies tested the impact of peer evaluation on patient outcomes. Best practices included standardized scoring systems, prospective criteria for case selection, and collaborative and non-judgmental review.

CONCLUSIONS

Peer evaluation of invasive medical procedures is feasible and generally demonstrates good or excellent inter-observer agreement when performed with structured tools. Our review identifies common elements of successful interventions across specialties. However, there is limited evidence that peer-evaluated performance is linked to other quality measures or that feedback to clinicians improves patient care or outcomes. Additional research is needed to develop and test peer evaluation and feedback interventions.