The compactEASIE is a feasible training model for endoscopic novices: a prospective randomised trial

Simulators and training models for diagnostic and therapeutic gastrointestinal endoscopy: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Technical and Technology Review

Gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy comprises both diagnostic and therapeutic procedures involving the luminal GI tract as well as the biliary tree, liver, and pancreas. GI endoscopy is challenging to learn, requiring both cognitive (nontechnical) and technical skills, and requires extensive practice to attain proficiency. Simulation-based training has been shown to assist trainees and young endoscopists in acquiring new skills and accelerating the learning curve. Moreover, simulation-based training creates an ideal environment for trainees to initially learn and practice skills while making mistakes with no risk to patients.This review, divided in two parts, offers a comprehensive summary of the different classes of simulators available for GI endoscopic training.In Part I, only mechanical simulators are reported and described. In Part II, animal simulators (ex vivo/in vivo) and virtual reality models are detailed, together with prototypes that are currently not commercially available.

Optimized Training in the Use of Endoscopic Closure Devices

Successful closure of gastrointestinal defects is one of the most important goals for therapeutic endoscopy. Historically, surgical repair was the mainstay of treatment for any gastrointestinal defect; however, surgery is associated with high morbidity and mortality. Endoscopic management of gastrointestinal defects has developed rapidly in recent years and has become more effective, reducing the morbidity and mortality rates, and avoiding surgical interventions. Appropriate use of endoscopic techniques requires extensive knowledge of the devices and their advantages and limitations during practical applications.

Training and competence assessment in GI endoscopy: a systematic review

INTRODUCTION

Training procedural skills in GI endoscopy once focused on threshold numbers. As threshold numbers poorly reflect individual competence, the focus gradually shifts towards a more individual approach. Tools to assess and document individual learning progress are being developed and incorporated in dedicated training curricula. However, there is a lack of consensus and training guidelines differ worldwide, which reflects uncertainties on optimal set-up of a training programme.

AIMS

The primary aim of this systematic review was to evaluate the currently available literature for the use of training and assessment methods in GI endoscopy. Second, we aimed to identify the role of simulator-based training as well as the value of continuous competence assessment in patient-based training. Third, we aimed to propose a structured training curriculum based on the presented evidence.

METHODS

A literature search was carried out in the available medical and educational literature databases. The results were systematically reviewed and studies were included using a predefined protocol with independent assessment by two reviewers and a final consensus round.

RESULTS

The literature search yielded 5846 studies. Ninety-four relevant studies on simulators, assessment methods, learning curves and training programmes for GI endoscopy met the inclusion criteria. Twenty-seven studies on simulator validation were included. Good validity was demonstrated for four simulators. Twenty-three studies reported on simulator training and learning curves, including 17 randomised control trials. Increased performance on a virtual reality (VR) simulator was shown in all studies. Improved performance in patient-based assessment was demonstrated in 14 studies. Four studies reported on the use of simulators for assessment of competence levels. Current simulators lack the discriminative power to determine competence levels in patient-based endoscopy. Eight out of 14 studies on colonoscopy, endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography and endosonography reported on learning curves in patient-based endoscopy and proved the value of this approach for measuring performance. Ten studies explored the numbers needed to gain competence, but the proposed thresholds varied widely between them. Five out of nine studies describing the development and evaluation of assessment tools for GI endoscopy provided insight into the performance of endoscopists. Five out of seven studies proved that intense training programmes result in good performance.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of validated VR simulators in the early training setting accelerates the learning of practical skills. Learning curves are valuable for the continuous assessment of performance and are more relevant than threshold numbers. Future research will strengthen these conclusions by evaluating simulation-based as well as patient-based training in GI endoscopy. A complete curriculum with the assessment of competence throughout training needs to be developed for all GI endoscopy procedures.

Polypectomy skills of gastroenterology fellows: can we improve them?

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Currently, most training programs for gastroenterology (GI) fellows lack systematic training in polypectomy. Systematic education and direct feedback with the direct observational polypectomy skills (DOPyS) method is a simple and inexpensive way to train GI fellows in practical endoscopy. Our primary aim was to evaluate whether a lecture-based training course could improve the polypectomy skills of GI fellows. As a secondary aim, the interobserver agreement among the three assessors was evaluated.

PARTICIPANTS AND METHODS

We invited GI fellows to record five polypectomies, after which they attended a training course consisting of three lectures on polyps and polypectomy methods given by expert endoscopists. After training, the fellows recorded five polypectomies again. All videos were blindly assessed by three expert endoscopists, who used the DOPyS method.

RESULTS

Eight GI fellows participated in this study. There was no significant difference in the median overall competency scores before and after training; before training, 25 % (10/40) of the polypectomies were scored as "pass," compared with 37.5 % (15/40) after training (P = 0.56). The interobserver agreement among the experts was fair (intraclass correlation coefficient [ICC] 0.34, 95 % confidence interval [CI] 0.14 - 0.52).

CONCLUSIONS

Our lecture-based training course did not result in an improvement in overall competency scores for the polypectomy skills of GI fellows. Besides, the overall quality of the polypectomy techniques of the fellows was considered low. To optimize polypectomy training and competency, we believe that direct feedback in the endoscopy suite and hands-on training by dedicated teachers are essential.

A Review of Endoscopic Simulation: Current Evidence on Simulators and Curricula

Upper and lower endoscopy is an important tool that is being utilized more frequently by general surgeons. Training in therapeutic endoscopic techniques has become a mandatory requirement for general surgery residency programs in the United States. The Fundamentals of Endoscopic Surgery has been developed to train and assess competency in these advanced techniques. Simulation has been shown to increase the skill and learning curve of trainees in other surgical disciplines. Several types of endoscopy simulators are commercially available; mechanical trainers, animal based, and virtual reality or computer-based simulators all have their benefits and limitations. However they have all been shown to improve trainee's endoscopic skills. Endoscopic simulators will play a critical role as part of a comprehensive curriculum designed to train the next generation of surgeons. We reviewed recent literature related to the various types of endoscopic simulators and their use in an educational curriculum, and discuss the relevant findings.

Effects of simulation-based training in gastrointestinal endoscopy: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Simulation-based training (SBT) in gastrointestinal endoscopy has been increasingly adopted by gastroenterology fellowship programs. However, the effectiveness of SBT in enhancing trainee skills remains unclear. We performed a systematic review with a meta-analysis of published literature on SBT in gastrointestinal endoscopy.

METHODS

We performed a systematic search of multiple electronic databases for all original studies that evaluated SBT in gastrointestinal endoscopy in comparison with no intervention or alternative instructional approaches. Outcomes included skills (in a test setting), behaviors (in clinical practice), and effects on patients. We pooled effect size (ES) using random-effects meta-analysis.

RESULTS

From 10,903 articles, we identified 39 articles, including 21 randomized trials of SBT, enrolling 1181 participants. Compared with no intervention (n = 32 studies), SBT significantly improved endoscopic process skills in a test setting (ES, 0.79; n = 22), process behaviors in clinical practice (ES, 0.49; n = 8), time to procedure completion in both a test setting (ES, 0.79; n = 16) and clinical practice (ES, 0.75; n = 5), and patient outcomes (procedural completion and risk of major complications; ES, 0.45; n = 10). Only 5 studies evaluated the comparative effectiveness of different SBT approaches; which provided inconclusive evidence regarding feedback and simulation modalities.

CONCLUSIONS

Simulation-based education in gastrointestinal endoscopy is associated with improved performance in a test setting and in clinical practice, and improved patient outcomes compared with no intervention. Comparative effectiveness studies of different simulation modalities are limited.

The effect of virtual endoscopy simulator training on novices: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Advances in virtual endoscopy simulators have paralleled an interest in medical simulation for gastrointestinal endoscopy training.

OBJECTIVE

The primary objective was to determine whether the virtual endoscopy simulator training could improve the performance of novices.

DESIGN

A systematic review.

SETTING

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared virtual endoscopy simulator training with bedside teaching or any other intervention for novices were collected.

PATIENTS

Novice endoscopists.

INTERVENTIONS

The PRISMA statement was followed during the course of the research. The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and ScienceDirect were searched (up to July 2013). Data extraction and assessment were independently performed.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS

Independent procedure completion, total procedure time and required assistance.

RESULTS

Fifteen studies (n = 354) were eligible for inclusion: 9 studies designed for colonoscopy training, 6 for gastroscopy training. For gastroscopy training, procedure completed independently was reported in 87.7% of participants in simulator training group compared to 70.0% of participants in control group (1 study; 22 participants; RR 1.25; 95% CI 1.13-1.39; P<0.0001). For colonoscopy training, procedure completed independently was reported in 89.3% of participants in simulator training group compared to 88.9% of participants in control group (7 study; 163 participants; RR 1.10; 95% CI 0.88-1.37; P = 0.41; I(2) = 85%).

LIMITATIONS

The included studies are quite in-homogeneous with respect to training schedule and procedure.

CONCLUSIONS

Virtual endoscopy simulator training might be effective for gastroscopy, but so far no data is available to support this for colonoscopy.

Poor discriminatory function for endoscopic skills on a computer-based simulator

BACKGROUND

Computer-based endoscopy simulators may enable trainees to learn and develop technical skills before performing on patients. Simulators require validation as adequate models of live endoscopy before being used for training or assessment purposes.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate content and criterion validity of the CAE EndoscopyVR Simulator colonoscopy and EGD modules as predictors of clinical endoscopic skills.

DESIGN

Prospective, observational, non-randomized, parallel cohort study.

SETTING

Single academic center with accredited gastroenterology training program.

PARTICIPANTS

Five novice first-year gastroenterology fellows and 6 expert gastroenterology attending physicians.

INTERVENTION

Participants performed 18 simulated colonoscopies and 6 simulated EGDs. The simulator recorded objective performance parameters. Participants then completed feedback surveys.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS

The 57 objective performance parameters measured by the endoscopy simulator were compared between the two study groups. Novice and expert survey responses were analyzed.

RESULTS

Significant differences between novice and expert performance were detected in only 19 of 57 (33%) performance metrics. Eight of these 19 (42%) were time-related metrics, such as total procedure time, time to anatomic landmarks, and time spent in contact with GI mucosa. Of 49 non-time related measures, the few additional statistically significant differences between novices and experts involved air insufflation, sedation management, endoscope force, and patient comfort. These findings are of uncertain clinical significance. Survey data found multiple aspects of the simulation to be unrealistic compared with human endoscopy.

LIMITATIONS

Small sample size.

CONCLUSION

The CAE EndoscopyVR Simulator displays poor content and criterion validity and is thereby incapable of predicting skill during in vivo endoscopy.

Virtual reality simulation training for health professions trainees in gastrointestinal endoscopy

BACKGROUND

Traditionally, training in gastrointestinal endoscopy has been based upon an apprenticeship model, with novice endoscopists learning basic skills under the supervision of experienced preceptors in the clinical setting. Over the last two decades, however, the growing awareness of the need for patient safety has brought the issue of simulation-based training to the forefront. While the use of simulation-based training may have important educational and societal advantages, the effectiveness of virtual reality gastrointestinal endoscopy simulators has yet to be clearly demonstrated.

OBJECTIVES

To determine whether virtual reality simulation training can supplement and/or replace early conventional endoscopy training (apprenticeship model) in diagnostic oesophagogastroduodenoscopy, colonoscopy and/or sigmoidoscopy for health professions trainees with limited or no prior endoscopic experience.

SEARCH METHODS

Health professions, educational and computer databases were searched until November 2011 including The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, EMBASE, Scopus, Web of Science, Biosis Previews, CINAHL, Allied and Complementary Medicine Database, ERIC, Education Full Text, CBCA Education, Career and Technical Education @ Scholars Portal, Education Abstracts @ Scholars Portal, Expanded Academic ASAP @ Scholars Portal, ACM Digital Library, IEEE Xplore, Abstracts in New Technologies and Engineering and Computer & Information Systems Abstracts. The grey literature until November 2011 was also searched.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised and quasi-randomised clinical trials comparing virtual reality endoscopy (oesophagogastroduodenoscopy, colonoscopy and sigmoidoscopy) simulation training versus any other method of endoscopy training including conventional patient-based training, in-job training, training using another form of endoscopy simulation (e.g. low-fidelity simulator), or no training (however defined by authors) were included.  Trials comparing one method of virtual reality training versus another method of virtual reality training (e.g. comparison of two different virtual reality simulators) were also included. Only trials measuring outcomes on humans in the clinical setting (as opposed to animals or simulators) were included.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors (CMS, MES) independently assessed the eligibility and methodological quality of trials, and extracted data on the trial characteristics and outcomes. Due to significant clinical and methodological heterogeneity it was not possible to pool study data in order to perform a meta-analysis. Where data were available for each continuous outcome we calculated standardized mean difference with 95% confidence intervals based on intention-to-treat analysis. Where data were available for dichotomous outcomes we calculated relative risk with 95% confidence intervals based on intention-to-treat-analysis.

MAIN RESULTS

Thirteen trials, with 278 participants, met the inclusion criteria. Four trials compared simulation-based training with conventional patient-based endoscopy training (apprenticeship model) whereas nine trials compared simulation-based training with no training. Only three trials were at low risk of bias. Simulation-based training, as compared with no training, generally appears to provide participants with some advantage over their untrained peers as measured by composite score of competency, independent procedure completion, performance time, independent insertion depth, overall rating of performance or competency error rate and mucosal visualization. Alternatively, there was no conclusive evidence that simulation-based training was superior to conventional patient-based training, although data were limited.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The results of this systematic review indicate that virtual reality endoscopy training can be used to effectively supplement early conventional endoscopy training (apprenticeship model) in diagnostic oesophagogastroduodenoscopy, colonoscopy and/or sigmoidoscopy for health professions trainees with limited or no prior endoscopic experience. However, there remains insufficient evidence to advise for or against the use of virtual reality simulation-based training as a replacement for early conventional endoscopy training (apprenticeship model) for health professions trainees with limited or no prior endoscopic experience. There is a great need for the development of a reliable and valid measure of endoscopic performance prior to the completion of further randomised clinical trials with high methodological quality.

Computer simulators: the present and near future of training in digestive endoscopy

The available data concerning recently marketed computer simulators for training in digestive endoscopy suggest that they could play a role in the pre-clinical phase of training, thus potentially leading to a shorter learning curve and better performance in the endoscopy room during the early phase of hands-on training. Technical improvements are still needed before such simulators can be used for the retraining of experienced endoscopists and for training in the use of newly developed devices dedicated to therapeutic endoscopy.

Strategies for training in diagnostic upper endoscopy: a prospective, randomized trial

BACKGROUND

Training simulators have been used for decades with success; however, a standardized educational strategy for diagnostic EGD is still lacking.

OBJECTIVE

Development of a training strategy for diagnostic upper endoscopy.

STUDY DESIGN

Prospective, randomized trial.

SETTINGS

A total of 28 medical and surgical residents without endoscopic experience were enrolled. Basic skills evaluations were performed following a structured program involving theoretical lectures and a hands-on course in diagnostic EGD. Subsequently, stratified randomization to clinical plus simulator training (group 1, n = 10), clinical training only (group 2, n = 9), or simulator training only (group 3, n = 9) was performed. Ten sessions of simulator training were conducted for groups 1 and 3 during the 4-month program. Group 2 underwent standard training in endoscopy without supplemental simulator training. The final evaluation was performed on the simulator and by observation of 3 clinical cases. Skills and procedural times were recorded by blinded and unblinded evaluators.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS

Time to reach the duodenum, pylorus, or esophagus.

RESULTS

All trainees demonstrated a significant reduction in procedure time during a simple manual skills test (P < .05) and significantly better skills scores (P = .006, P = .042 and P = .017) in the simulator independent of the training strategy. Group 1 showed shorter times to intubate the esophagus (61 ± 26 seconds vs 85 ± 30 seconds and 95 ± 36 seconds) and the pylorus (183 ± 65 seconds vs 207 ± 61 seconds and 247 ± 66 seconds) during the clinical evaluation. Blinded assessment of EGD skills showed significantly better results for group 1 compared with group 3. Blinded and unblinded evaluations were not statistically different.

LIMITATIONS

Small sample size.

CONCLUSIONS

Structured simulator training supplementing clinical training in upper endoscopy appears to be superior to clinical training alone. Simulator training alone does not seem to be sufficient to improve endoscopic skills.

Training on an ex vivo animal model improves endoscopic skills: a randomized, single-blind study

BACKGROUND

Animal models are used for training of different endoscopic procedures. Whether this really improves endoscopic skills remains controversial.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the effectiveness of training by using an ex vivo animal gastric model on the performance of two therapeutic procedures-hemostasis and treatment of perforation.

DESIGN

A randomized, single-blind study.

SETTING

An experimental endoscopy center in a university hospital.

PARTICIPANTS

Thirty-one gastroenterology fellows with comparable endoscopic experience.

METHODS

Participants were randomized into two groups: with (T, n = 16) and without (S, n = 15) training. All fellows continued with standard endoscopic practice. Baseline skills were assessed at enrollment. All physicians in group T underwent 2 full days of a hands-on course over a 3-month period, in addition to their standard endoscopic practice. Both groups then underwent a blinded, final evaluation. Endoscopic skills were scored from 1 (best) to 5 (poorest) by two expert, blinded tutors. Outcomes of clinical hemostatic procedures also were analyzed.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS

Successful hemostasis and successful perforation closure.

RESULTS

Thirty physicians completed the study. Hemostasis results (n = 15): The number of physicians who carried out a successful hemostasis procedure increased significantly in the group with training (27% vs 73%; P = .009) but did not change in the group without training (20% vs 20%). The mean scores of injection and clipping technique improved significantly only after training. The number of clips used decreased significantly only in the group with training; the time of clipping did not change significantly in either group. Perforation results (n = 15): The number of physicians with a successful and complete perforation closure increased nearly significantly in the group with training (40% vs 73%, P = .06) as opposed to the group without training (27% vs 47%; P = .27). The procedure time decreased significantly in the group with training only. In clinical practice, fellows in group T had a significantly higher success rate with respect to hemostatic procedures (83.2%, range 67-100 vs 63.6%, range 25-100; P = .0447). The majority of participants (93%) agreed that such courses should be compulsory in gastroenterological credentials.

LIMITATIONS

A retrospective analysis of clinical outcomes. Clinical outcome data were based on self-reporting of the participants.

CONCLUSION

Hands-on training by using an animal ex vivo model improves endoscopic skills in both hemostasis and perforation closure. In clinical practice, the training improves the outcome of hemostatic procedures.

Simulator training improves practical skills in therapeutic GI endoscopy: results from a randomized, blinded, controlled study

BACKGROUND

Therapeutic endoscopic procedures are technically challenging and have higher complication rates than diagnostic procedures. Less-experienced practitioners are significantly more likely to have a complication, yet there is very limited evidence of the efficacy of training in such procedures.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the effect of knowledge-based teaching and hands-on, simulation-based skills training in 4 therapeutic endoscopic procedures: control of nonvariceal upper GI bleeding, polypectomy, stricture dilation, and percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) tube insertion.

DESIGN

Single-blind, randomized, controlled trial.

SETTING

Nationally accredited therapeutic endoscopy course.

PARTICIPANTS AND INTERVENTION

Participants were randomized into groups to assess the effect of knowledge-based teaching and into subjects or controls to assess skills-based training. All delegates had an initial knowledge and skills assessment by blinded experts. Subjects received one-half day of hands-on skills training, whereas the controls did not. All delegates were retested on their procedural skills.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS

Knowledge was assessed by using a multiple-choice questionnaire. Practical skills were assessed using station-specific checklists and a global score.

RESULTS

Twenty-eight participants were randomized. There was no significant effect of knowledge-based teaching on the participants' practical skills or initial multiple-choice questionnaire score, although there was a trend toward improvement. There was a significant improvement in the subjects compared with the controls in the performance of polypectomy, control of upper GI bleeding, and esophageal dilation. There were no significant differences for PEG tube insertion.

LIMITATIONS

The 2-person nature of PEG tube insertion may have resulted in performance improvement despite a lack of training.

CONCLUSION

Hands-on skills training significantly improved performance in 3 therapeutic modalities. Knowledge-based teaching alone did not have a measurable effect. These results strongly support the benefit of intensive hands-on, simulation-based courses for endoscopic skills training.