Prospective multicenter study to evaluate capsule endoscopy competency using a validated assessment tool

Assessing the Impact of a Structured Capsule Endoscopy Training Program Using a New Validated Assessment Tool

BACKGROUND AND AIM

We aimed to develop and validate a simple capsule endoscopy (CE) training assessment tool, the Capsule Endoscopy Training Assessment (CETA), and prospectively use it to analyze the learning progression achieved by participants in our CE training program.

METHODS

Over a 3-year period, all participants in our CE training program completed pre-training and post-training CETA, ranging between 0% and 100%, and encompassing theoretical questions and interpretation of segmented CE videos. We compared the mean differences in overall, theoretical, and practical pre-training and post-training CETA, and assessed the influence of previous endoscopic experience (upper gastrointestinal endoscopy [UGE], colonoscopy, device-assisted enteroscopy [DAE] and CE) using generalized linear models.

RESULTS

Fifty-seven participants were included. After training, there was a significant increase in participants' overall (mean difference, 26.3; 95% confidence interval [CI], 20.70 to 31.83), theoretical (mean difference, 27.2; 95% CI, 19.81 to 34.57), and practical (mean difference, 25.9; 95% CI, 20.09 to 31.63) CETA components. Compared to those without experience, participants with previous endoscopic experience demonstrated a smaller increase in overall CETA after training (UGE, rate ratio, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.63 to 0.91; colonoscopy (rate ratio, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.67 to 0.95; DAE (rate ratio, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.73 to 0.97; CE, rate ratio, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.72 to 0.92, respectively).

CONCLUSION

CETA is a valid and useful tool in assessing the learning progression achieved by participants following the CE training program. We demonstrated a significant improvement in participants' CETA after training, being the least experienced participants in endoscopic procedures who benefited the most from CE training.

Quality indicators for capsule endoscopy and deep enteroscopy

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Capsule endoscopy (CE) and deep enteroscopy (DE) can be useful for diagnosing and treating suspected small-bowel disease. Guidelines and detailed recommendations exist for the use of CE/DE, but comprehensive quality indicators are lacking. The goal of this task force was to develop quality indicators for appropriate use of CE/DE by using a modified RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method.

METHODS

An expert panel of 7 gastroenterologists with diverse practice experience was assembled to identify quality indicators. A literature review was conducted to develop a list of proposed quality indicators applicable to preprocedure, intraprocedure, and postprocedure periods. The panelists reviewed the literature; identified and modified proposed quality indicators; rated them on the basis of scientific evidence, validity, and necessity; and determined proposed performance targets. Agreement and consensus with the proposed indicators were verified using the RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method.

RESULTS

The voting procedure to prioritize metrics emphasized selecting measures to improve quality and overall patient care. Panelists rated indicators on the perceived appropriateness and necessity for clinical practice. After voting and discussion, 2 quality indicators ranked as inappropriate or uncertain were excluded. Each quality indicator was categorized by measure type, performance target, and summary of evidence. The task force identified 13 quality indicators for CE and DE.

CONCLUSIONS

Comprehensive quality indicators have not existed for CE or DE. The task force identified quality indicators that can be incorporated into clinical practice. The panel also addressed existing knowledge gaps and posed research questions to better inform future research and quality guidelines for these procedures.

Quality Indicators for Capsule Endoscopy and Deep Enteroscopy

INTRODUCTION

Capsule endoscopy (CE) and deep enteroscopy (DE) can be useful for diagnosing and treating suspected small-bowel disease. Guidelines and detailed recommendations exist for the use of CE/DE, but comprehensive quality indicators are lacking. The goal of this task force was to develop quality indicators for appropriate use of CE/DE by using a modified RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method.

METHODS

An expert panel of 7 gastroenterologists with diverse practice experience was assembled to identify quality indicators. A literature review was conducted to develop a list of proposed quality indicators applicable to preprocedure, intraprocedure, and postprocedure periods. The panelists reviewed the literature; identified and modified proposed quality indicators; rated them on the basis of scientific evidence, validity, and necessity; and determined proposed performance targets. Agreement and consensus with the proposed indicators were verified using the RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method.

RESULTS

The voting procedure to prioritize metrics emphasized selecting measures to improve quality and overall patient care. Panelists rated indicators on the perceived appropriateness and necessity for clinical practice. After voting and discussion, 2 quality indicators ranked as inappropriate or uncertain were excluded. Each quality indicator was categorized by measure type, performance target, and summary of evidence. The task force identified 13 quality indicators for CE and DE.

DISCUSSION

Comprehensive quality indicators have not existed for CE or DE. The task force identified quality indicators that can be incorporated into clinical practice. The panel also addressed existing knowledge gaps and posed research questions to better inform future research and quality guidelines for these procedures.

A guide for assessing the clinical relevance of findings in small bowel capsule endoscopy: analysis of 8064 answers of international experts to an illustrated script questionnaire

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Although recommended, the P-score used for assessing the pertinence / relevance of findings seen in small bowel (SB) capsule endoscopy (CE) is based on a low level of knowledge. The aim of this study was to evaluate the clinical relevance of the most frequent SBCE findings through an illustrated script questionnaire.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Sixteen types of SBCE findings were illustrated four times each in three different settings (occult and overt obscure gastrointestinal bleeding and suspected Crohn's disease), and with a variable number (n = 1/n = 2-5/n ≥ 6), thus providing a questionnaire with 192 scenarios and 576 illustrated questions. Fifteen international experts were asked to rate the finding's relevance for each question as very unlikely (-2) / unlikely (-1) / doubtful (0) / likely (+1) / very likely (+2). The median score (≤-0.75, between -0.75 and 0.75, or ≥0.75) obtained for each scenario determined a low (P0), intermediate (P1) or high (P2) relevance, respectively.

RESULTS

8064 answers were analyzed. Participation and completion rates were 93% and 100%, respectively. In overt or occult OGIB, resultant P2 findings were 'typical angiectasia', 'deep ulceration', 'stenosis', and'blood', whatever their numbers, and 'superficial ulcerations' when multiple. While in suspected CD, consensus P2 lesions were 'deep ulceration' and 'stenosis' whatever their numbers, and 'aphthoid erosions' and 'superficial ulcerations' when multiple.

CONCLUSION

This study establishes a guide for the evaluation of relevance of SBCE findings. It represents a step forward for SB-CE interpretation and is intended to be used as a tool for teaching and academic research.

Training, Reading, and Reporting for Small Bowel Video Capsule Endoscopy

Video capsule endoscopy (VCE) is an established modality for examining the small bowel. Formal training in interpretation and reporting of VCE examinations, along with assessment of performance metrics, is advocated for all gastroenterology fellowship programs. This review provides an overview of VCE minimum training requirements and competency assessment, cognitive and technical aspects of interpretation, and standardized reporting of findings. In order to optimize and advance the clinical utility of VCE, efforts must continue to promote and encourage consensus and standardization of training, definition and assessment of competence, enhancements of VCE reading tools, and use of appropriate nomenclature in VCE reports.

Quality performance measures for small capsule endoscopy: Are the ESGE quality standards met?

Background and study aims  The European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) recently issued a quality performance measures document for small bowel capsule endoscopy (SBCE). The aim of this nationwide survey was to explore SBCE practice with ESGE quality measures as a benchmark. Patients and methods  A dedicated per-center semi-quantitative questionnaire based on ESGE performance measures for SBCE was created by a group of SBCE experts. One-hundred-eighty-one centers were invited to participate and were asked to calculate performance measures for SBCE performed in 2018. Data were compared with 10 ESGE quality standards for both key and minor performance measures. Results  Ninety-one centers (50.3 %) participated in the data collection. Overall in the last 5 years (2014-2018), 26,615 SBCEs were performed, 5917 of which were done in 2018. Eighty percent or more of the participating centers reached the minimum standard established by the ESGE Small Bowel Working Group (ESBWG) for four performance measures (indications for SBCE, complete small bowel evaluation, diagnostic yield and retention rate). Conversely, compliance with six minimum standards established by ESBWG concerning adequate bowel preparation, patient selection, timing of SBCE in overt bleeding, appropriate reporting, reading protocols and referral to device-assisted enteroscopy was met by only 15.5 %, 10.9 %, 31.1 %, 67.7 %, 53.4 %, and 32.2 % of centers, respectively. Conclusions  The present survey shows significant variability across SBCE centers; only four (4/10: 40 %) SBCE procedural minimum standards were met by a relevant proportion of the centers ( ≥ 80 %). Our data should help in identifying target areas for quality improvement programs in SBCE.

How should we do colon capsule endoscopy reading: a practical guide

In this article, we aim to provide general principles as well as personal views for colonic capsule endoscopy. To allow an in-depth understanding of the recommendations, we also present basic technological characteristics and specifications, with emphasis on the current as well as the previous version of colonic capsule endoscopy and relevant software. To date, there is no scientific proof to support the optimal way of reading a colonic capsule endoscopy video, or any standards or guidelines exist. Hence, any advice is a mixture of recommendations by the capsule manufacturer and experts' opinion. Furthermore, there is a paucity of data regarding the use of term(s) (pre-reader/reader-validator) in colonic capsule endoscopy. We also include a couple of handy tables in order to get info at a glance.

Device-assisted enteroscopy training. A rapid review

Device-assisted enteroscopy is currently lacking a validated training model, in contrast to the other major technique used for the study of the small bowel, namely capsule endoscopy. Training should be based on defining and achieving competency for the acquisition of the knowledge and skills required to perform enteroscopy in a safe and effective manner. The need for training is clear, since the technique is considered an advanced endoscopy form that requires maneuvers that differ from the usual ones that must be learned, in addition to specific equipment. Therefore, the ideal candidates for this training include professionals with accredited experience in therapeutic digestive endoscopy. Amongst the recommendations issued regarding device-assisted enteroscopy training, the estimation of small-bowel insertion depth and the choice of the examination route, whether oral or anal, should be highlighted. Learning curve descriptions have the limitation of being explorer-dependent with no consensus on the parameter that should be selected to establish a correct learning curve in enteroscopy. The most commonly used parameter is insertion depth. The few training models that have been proposed recommend using a highly useful tool, namely simulators and to start practicing under expert guidance. Based on the variability of published data, an experienced endoscopist may perform enteroscopy in a safe and effective manner after 5 to 35 training procedures. Although reaching the expert level requires prolonged clinical practice with exposure to the various disorders of the small bowel.