Resident training in flexible gastrointestinal endoscopy: a review of current issues and options

Impact of Artificial Intelligence on Gastroenterology Trainee Education

Artificial intelligence (AI) is transforming gastroenterology, particularly in endoscopy, which has a direct impact on trainees and their education. AI can serve as a valuable resource, providing real-time feedback and aiding in tasks like polyp detection and lesion differentiation, which are challenging for trainees. However, its implementation raises concerns about cognitive overload, overreliance, and even access disparities, which could affect training outcomes. Beyond endoscopy, AI shows promise in clinical management and interpreting diagnostic studies such as motility testing. Thoughtful adoption of AI can optimize training and prepare future trainees for the modern healthcare landscape.

Exploring Endoscopic Competence in Gastroenterology Training: A Simulation-Based Comparative Analysis of GAGES, DOPS, and ACE Assessment Tools

Purpose

Accurate and convenient evaluation tools are essential to document endoscopic competence in Gastroenterology training programs. The Direct Observation of Procedural Skills (DOPS), Global Assessment of Gastrointestinal Endoscopic Skills (GAGES), and Assessment of Endoscopic Competency (ACE) are widely used validated competency assessment tools for gastrointestinal endoscopy. However, studies comparing these 3 tools are lacking, leading to lack of standardization in this assessment. Through simulation, this study seeks to determine the most reliable, comprehensive, and user-friendly tool for standardizing endoscopy competency assessment.

Methods

A mixed-methods quantitative-qualitative approach was utilized with sequential deductive design. All nine trainees in a gastroenterology training program were assessed on endoscopic procedural competence using the Simbionix Gi-bronch-mentor high-fidelity simulator, with 2 faculty raters independently completing the 3 assessment forms of DOPS, GAGES, and ACE. Psychometric analysis was used to evaluate the tools' reliability. Additionally, faculty trainers participated in a focused group discussion (FGD) to investigate their experience in using the tools.

Results

For upper GI endoscopy, Cronbach's alpha values for internal consistency were 0.53, 0.8, and 0.87 for ACE, DOPS, and GAGES, respectively. Inter-rater reliability (IRR) scores were 0.79 (0.43-0.92) for ACE, 0.75 (-0.13-0.82) for DOPS, and 0.59 (-0.90-0.84) for GAGES. For colonoscopy, Cronbach's alpha values for internal consistency were 0.53, 0.82, and 0.85 for ACE, DOPS, and GAGES, respectively. IRR scores were 0.72 (0.39-0.96) for ACE, 0.78 (-0.12-0.86) for DOPS, and 0.53 (-0.91-0.78) for GAGES. The FGD yielded three key themes: the ideal tool should be scientifically sound, comprehensive, and user-friendly.

Conclusion

The DOPS tool performed favourably in both the qualitative assessment and psychometric evaluation to be considered the most balanced amongst the three assessment tools. We propose that the DOPS tool be used for endoscopic skill assessment in gastroenterology training programs. However, gastroenterology training programs need to match their learning outcomes with the available assessment tools to determine the most appropriate one in their context.

The utility of intraoperative endoscopy in esophagogastric surgery

Flexible endoscopy (FE) plays a major role in the diagnosis and treatment of gastrointestinal disease. Although its intraoperative use has spread over the years, its use by surgeons is still limited in our setting. FE training opportunities are different among many institutions, specialties, and countries. Intraoperative endoscopy (IOE) presents peculiarities that increase its complexity compared to standard FE. IOE has a positive impact on surgical results, due to increased safety and quality, as well as a reduction in the complications. Due to its innumerable advantages, its intraoperative use by surgeons is currently a current project in many countries and is part of the near future in others because of the creation of better structured training projects. This manuscript reviews and updates the indications and uses of intraoperative upper gastrointestinal endoscopy in esophagogastric surgery.

Fabrication and Validation of a Cost-Effective Upper Endoscopy Simulator

Purpose:

Beginning with the graduating class of 2018, the American Board of Surgery (ABS) requires that residents complete the ABS Flexible Endoscopy Curriculum, Fundamentals of Endoscopic Surgery (FES). This curriculum includes both didactic and simulator training. In the ideal setting residents gain proficiency using simulation prior to performing endoscopies in the clinical setting. This new requirement creates an increased demand for endoscopic simulators in all General Surgery residency programs. Due to the cost prohibitive nature of virtual reality simulators an economic alternative is needed.

Methods:

A mechanical simulator was created from inexpensive items easily acquired at a hardware store and in the hospital. Total cost of the simulator was approximately $120 USD. To validate the simulator, experienced endoscopists completed a training session with the device. A seven-question Likert scale survey (1 - strongly disagree to 5 - strongly agree) was completed after the session evaluated the simulated experience versus live upper endoscopies and the device’s ability to meet the goals of the FES curriculum.

Results:

Eight proficient endoscopists completed the training session and survey and agreed that the device closely replicated live colonoscopies and would meet all training requirements in the FES curriculum. Mean responses to all seven survey questions ranged from 3.8–4.4.

Conclusion:

This device is a cost-effective method for simulating live upper endoscopies and is appropriate for use in FES training.

Development of Simulator Guidelines for Resident Assessment in Flexible Endoscopy

Virtual reality (VR) simulators may hold a role in the assessment of trainee abilities independent of their role as instructional instruments. Thus, we piloted a course in flexible endoscopy to surgical trainees who had met Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education endoscopy requirements to establish the relationship between metrics produced by a VR endoscopic simulator and trainee ability. After a didactic session, we provided faculty instruction to senior residents for Case 1 upper endoscopy and colonoscopy modules on the CAE Endoscopy VR. Course conclusion was defined as a trainee meeting all proficiency standards in basic endoscopic procedures on the simulator. Simulator metrics and course evaluation comprised data. Eleven and eight residents participated in the colonoscopy and upper endoscopy courses, respectively. Average time to reach proficiency standards for esophagogastroduodenoscopy was 6 and 13 minutes for colonoscopy after a median of one (range, one to two) and one (range, one to four) task repetitions, respectively. Faculty instruction averaged 7.5 minutes of instruction per repetition. A subjective course evaluation demonstrated that the course improved learners’ knowledge of the subject and comfort with endoscopic equipment. Within a VR-based curriculum, experienced residents rapidly achieved task proficiency. The resultant scores may be used as simulator guidelines for resident assessment and readiness to perform flexible endoscopy.

Fabrication of An Inexpensive but Effective Colonoscopic Simulator

Because of increasing requirements for simulator training before actual clinical endoscopies, the demand for realistic, inexpensive endoscopic simulators is increasing. We describe the steps involved in the design and fabrication of an effective and realistic mechanical colonoscopic simulator.

Effect of Changing Patterns and Requirements of Endoscopic Training in Surgical Residency

This study aimed at looking at the effect of changing patterns and requirements of endoscopic training in surgical residency. Recognizing the increasing role of endoscopy, the minimum required scope number was increased to 85 (including at least 35 esophagogastroduodenoscopies (EGD) and 50 colonoscopies) for graduates completing their program in June 2009. The purpose of our study was to see how this new requirement affected the endoscopic performance of residents. A retrospective study was done examining the performance of residents, based on data from the national Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) logs from 1990–2010. For graduating residents, we compared data for various procedures from 1990–2008 to 2009–2010. For colonoscopies, the average increased from 32 to 63. Increases were also found in their chief year, from 7 to 18.8. For EGD, the average increased from 25 to 34. In their chief year, the average more than doubled from 4.4 to 9.7. There were no increases for other endoscopic procedures such as endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP), bronchoscopies, and cystoscopies between the 2 time periods. When an increased requirement for endoscopy was instituted by the ACGME, there was an increase in the number of colonoscopies and EGD performed by the graduating residents, although there was no difference in the numbers of other scopes (e.g., cystoscopes, bronchoscopes, and ERCP) for the same time period.

Validity evidence for a new portable, lower-cost platform for the fundamentals of endoscopic surgery skills test

BACKGROUND

The fundamentals of endoscopic surgery (FES) examination measures the knowledge and skills required to perform safe flexible endoscopy. A potential limitation of the FES skills test is the size and cost of the simulator on which it was developed (GI Mentor II virtual reality endoscopy simulator; Simbionix LTD, Israel). A more compact and lower-cost alternative (GI Mentor Express) was developed to address this issue. The purpose of this study was to obtain evidence for the validity of scores obtained on the Express platform, so that it can be used for testing.

STUDY DESIGN

General surgery residents at various levels of training and practicing endoscopists at five institutions participated. Each completed the five FES tasks on both simulator platforms in random order, with 3-14 days between tests. Scores were calculated using the same standardized computer-generated algorithm and compared using Pearson's correlation coefficient.

RESULTS

There were 58 participants (mean age 32; 76% male) with a broad range of endoscopic experience. The mean (95% confidence interval) FES scores were 72 (67:77) on the GI Mentor II and 66 (60:71) on the Express. The correlation between scores on the two platforms was 0.86 (0.77:0.91; p < 0.0001).

CONCLUSION

There is a high correlation between FES manual skills scores measured on the original platform and the new Express, providing evidence to support the use of the GI Mentor Express for FES testing.

The Relationship of Endoscopic Proficiency to Educational Expense for Virtual Reality Simulator Training Amongst Surgical Trainees

With the introduction of Fundamentals of Endoscopic Surgery™, training methods in flexible endoscopy are being augmented with simulation-based curricula. The investment for virtual reality simulators warrants further research into its training advantage. Trainees were randomized into bedside or simulator training groups (BED vs SIM). SIM participated in a proficiency-based virtual reality curriculum. Trainees’ endoscopic skills were rated using the Global Assessment of Gastrointestinal Endoscopic Skills (GAGES) in the patient care setting. The number of cases to reach 90 per cent of the maximum GAGES score and calculated costs of training were compared. Nineteen residents participated in the study. There was no difference in the average number of cases required to achieve 90 per cent of the maximum GAGES score for esophagogastroduodenoscopy, 13 (SIM) versus11 (BED) ( P = 0.63), or colonoscopy 21 (SIM) versus 4 (BED) ( P = 0.34). The average per case cost of training for esophagogastroduodenoscopy was $35.98 (SIM) versus $39.71 (BED) ( P = 0.50), not including the depreciation costs associated with the simulator ($715.00 per resident over six years). Use of a simulator appeared to increase the cost of training without accelerating the learning curve or decreasing faculty time spent in instruction. The importance of simulation in endoscopy training will be predicated on more cost-effective simulators.

Evaluation of two flexible colonoscopy simulators and transfer of skills into clinical practice

INTRODUCTION

Surgical residents have learned flexible endoscopy by practicing on patients in hospital settings under the strict guidance of experienced surgeons. Simulation is often used to "pretrain" novices on endoscopic skills before real clinical practice; nonetheless, the optimal method of training remains unknown. The purpose of this study was to compare endoscopic virtual reality and physical model simulators and their respective roles in transferring skills to the clinical environment.

METHODS

At the beginning of a skills development rotation, 27 surgical postgraduate year 1 residents performed a baseline screening colonoscopy on a real patient under faculty supervision. Their performances were scored using the Global Assessment of Gastrointestinal Endoscopic Skills (GAGES). Subsequently, interns completed a 3-week flexible endoscopy curriculum developed at our institution. One-third of the residents were assigned to train with the GI Mentor simulator, one-third trained with the Kyoto simulator, and one-third of the residents trained using both simulators. At the end of their rotations, each postgraduate year 1 resident performed one posttest colonoscopy on a different patient and was again scored using GAGES by an experienced faculty.

RESULTS

A statistically significant improvement in the GAGES total score (p < 0.001) and on each of its subcomponents (p = 0.001) was observed from pretest to posttest for all groups combined. Subgroup analysis indicated that trainees in the GI Mentor or both simulators conditions showed significant improvement from pretest to posttest in terms of GAGES total score (p = 0.017 vs 0.024, respectively). This was not observed for those exclusively using the Kyoto platform (p = 0.072). Nonetheless, no single training condition was shown to be a better training modality when compared to others in terms of total GAGES score or in any of its subcomponents.

CONCLUSION

Colonoscopy simulator training with the GI Mentor platform exclusively or in combination with a physical model simulator improves skill performance in real colonoscopy cases when measured with the GAGES tool.

A classification of the verbal methods currently used to teach endoscopy

BACKGROUND

As endoscopy does not lend itself well to assisting or exposure by the teacher, most of the teaching is, by necessity, done verbally.

METHODS

The verbal teaching occurring during 19 colonoscopies and 14 gastroscopies was recorded by dictaphone and later transcribed. The resultant 53-page transcript was then analyzed using the Grounded Theory method. Teaching was compared between learners with less than one month versus more than one month of training and between teaching of colonoscopy versus gastroscopy.

RESULTS

The process of iterative review and repeated testing yielded 6 types of verbal teaching: demonstration by the teacher, motor instructions, broad tips/tricks/pointers, verbal feedback, questioning, and non-procedural information. Inter-rater agreement was excellent (Fleiss's kappa = 0.76) between resident (DM), the non-medical educator (MP), and the medical teacher (MM). Overall, there was less non-procedural teaching (6.7% vs 23.7%, p = 0.01) and a trend towards more teaching moments per case (13.2 vs 7.9, p = 0.07) in the first month of the rotation compared to the later months. A greater proportion of the teaching for colonoscopy involved demonstration (13.7% vs. 2.7%, p = 0.040) and tips/tricks/pointers (26.6% vs. 12.4%, p = 0.012) compared to gastroscopy.

CONCLUSIONS

We describe a means of categorizing verbal teaching in endoscopy that is simple and shows strong inter-rater agreement that will serve as a starting point for further studies aiming to improve how endoscopy is taught.

Computer-based virtual reality colonoscopy simulation improves patient-based colonoscopy performance

BACKGROUND

Colonoscopy simulators that enable one to perform computer-based virtual colonoscopy now exist. However, data regarding the effectiveness of this virtual training are limited.

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether virtual reality simulator training translates into improved patient-based colonoscopy performance.

METHODS

The present study was a prospective controlled trial involving 18 residents between postgraduate years 2 and 4 with no previous colonoscopy experience. These residents were assigned to receive 16 h of virtual reality simulator training or no training. Both groups were evaluated on their first five patient-based colonoscopies. The primary outcome was the number of proctor 'assists' required per colonoscopy. Secondary outcomes included insertion time, depth of insertion, cecal intubation rate, proctor- and nurse-rated competence, and patient-rated pain.

RESULTS

The simulator group required significantly fewer proctor assists than the control group (1.94 versus 3.43; P ≤ 0.001), inserted the colonoscope further unassisted (43 cm versus 24 cm; P=0.003) and there was a trend to intubate the cecum more often (26% versus 10%; P=0.06). The simulator group received higher ratings of competence from both the proctors (2.28 versus 1.88 of 5; P=0.02) and the endoscopy nurses (2.56 versus 2.05 of 5; P=0.001). There were no significant differences in proctor-, nurse- or patient-rated pain, or attention to discomfort.

CONCLULSIONS

Computer-based colonoscopy simulation in the initial stages of training improved novice trainees' patient-based colonoscopy performance.

Validation of a realistic simulator for veterinary gastrointestinal endoscopy training

This article reports on the face, content, and construct validity of a new realistic composite simulator (Simuldog) used to provide training in canine gastrointestinal flexible endoscopy. The basic endoscopic procedures performed on the simulator were esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD), gastric biopsy (GB), and gastric foreign body removal (FBR). Construct validity was assessed by comparing the performance of novices (final-year veterinary students and recent graduates without endoscopic experience, n=30) versus experienced subjects (doctors in veterinary medicine who had performed more than 50 clinical upper gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures as a surgeon, n=15). Tasks were scored based on completion time, and specific rating scales were developed to assess performance. Internal consistency and inter-rater agreement were assessed. Face and content validity were determined using a 5-point Likert-type scale questionnaire. The novices needed considerably more time than the experts to perform EGD, GB, and FBR, and their performance scores were significantly lower (p<.010). Inter-rater agreement and the internal validity of the rating scales were good. Face validity was excellent, and both groups agreed that the endoscopy scenarios were very realistic. The experts highly valued the usefulness of Simuldog for veterinary training and as a tool for assessing endoscopic skills. Simuldog is the first validated model specifically developed to be used as a training tool for endoscopy techniques in small animals.

The role of upper gastrointestinal endoscopy in treating postoperative complications in bariatric surgery

There are an estimated 500 million obese individuals worldwide. Currently, bariatric surgery has been shown to result in clinically significant weight loss. With increasing demand for bariatric surgery, endoscopic techniques used intra and postoperatively continue to evolve. Endoscopic evaluation of anastomotic integrity following RYGB allows for early detection of anastomotic leaks. Furthermore, endoscopy is a valuable tool to diagnose and treat RYGB postoperative surgical complications such as anastomotic leakage, hemorrhage and stricture formation. Early evidence suggests that endoscopic management of upper gastrointestinal hemorrhage following RYGB is effective. In addition, endoscopic balloon dilatation is able to effectively treat obstruction in the setting of gastrojejunal anastomotic strictures. With successful endoscopic management of these complications, bariatric patients may avoid more invasive surgical procedures.

Can image-based virtual reality help teach anatomy?

OBJECTIVE

To assess the utilization of a novel virtual reality robotic surgical simulator (RoSS) in surgical anatomy training and pattern recognition.

STUDY DESIGN

Ten surgical trainees (medical students and residents) were recruited to participate in a study that evaluated the efficacy of a robotic simulator in anatomy training. The subjects were divided into two groups of five individuals each. Each participant received a syllabus consisting of line diagrams and color pictures of the human anatomy. All participants were later tested on identifying the same five anatomical landmarks from photographs from actual laparoscopic procedures. Group I studied the syllabus and took the test. Group II similarly studied the syllabus, but were trained on the RoSS system using cognitive skill sets and then took the same test. Group II were asked to complete a posttest survey.

RESULTS

Mean time to complete the test was 142.8 seconds for group I and 118.4 seconds for group II. Mean number of errors committed by the group trained on RoSS was 0.4 out of 5, whereas the group that did not undergo training on RoSS committed 1.7 out of 5. The mean number of correct answers given by group I was 2.9 out of 5, whereas group II answered 4.2 out 5 correctly. All results were statistically significant. The subjects rated the anatomy module helpful, with a mean rating of 3.6 out of 5.

CONCLUSIONS

RoSS is an effective tool in anatomy training. Further testing is underway to illustrate its important role in medical education and robotic surgical training.

FLS and FES: comprehensive models of training and assessment

The Fundamentals of Laparoscopic surgery (FLS) is a validated program for the teaching and evaluation of the basic knowledge and skills required to perform laparoscopic surgery. The educational component includes didactic, Web-based material and a simple, affordable physical simulator with specific tasks and a recommended curriculum. FLS certification requires passing a written multiple-choice examination and a proctored manual skills examination in the FLS simulator. The metrics for the FLS program have been rigorously validated to meet the highest educational standards, and certification is now a requirement for the American Board of Surgery. This article summarizes the validation process and the FLS-related research that has been done to date. The Fundamentals of Endoscopic Surgery is a program modeled after FLS with a similar mission for flexible endoscopy. It is currently in the final stages of development and will be launched in April 2010. The program also includes learning and assessment components, and is undergoing the same meticulous validation process as FLS. These programs serve as models for the creation of simulation-based tools to teach skills and assess competence with the intention of optimizing patient safety and the quality of surgical education.

How should we establish the clinical case numbers required to achieve proficiency in flexible endoscopy?

BACKGROUND

Recommended procedure numbers for upper endoscopy (UE) and colonoscopy (C) are 35 and 50 for surgical residents, and 130 and 140 for gastroenterology fellows, respectively. The purpose of this study was to challenge the methods used to determine proficiency in flexible endoscopy.

METHODS

Global assessment of gastrointestinal endoscopic skills (GAGES) was used to evaluate 139 procedures. Scores for UE were compared using self-reported case numbers and grouped according to requirements for each discipline. C scores were compared using the requirements to define novice and experienced endoscopists. Procedure volumes were plotted against GAGES scores.

RESULTS

Three groups were compared for UE based on case volumes: fewer than 35 cases (group 1), 35 to 130 cases (group 2), and more than 130 cases (group 3). There was no difference between group 2 (17.8 +/- 1.8) and group 3 (19.1 +/- 1.1), but both scored higher than group 1 (14.4 +/- 3.7; P < .05). For C, the scores were 11.8 +/- 3.8 (novices) and 18.8 +/- 1.34 (experienced; P < .001) at a 50-case minimum and 12.4 +/- 4.2 and 18.8 +/- 1.3 (P < .001) for a 140-case proficiency cut-off level, respectively. The curve of procedures versus GAGES plateaued at 50 (UE) and 75 (C).

CONCLUSIONS

The surgical and gastroenterology case recommendations may not represent the experience needed to achieve proficiency. GAGES scores could help define proficiency in basic endoscopy.

Face and construct validity of a computer-based virtual reality simulator for ERCP

BACKGROUND

Currently, little evidence supports computer-based simulation for ERCP training.

OBJECTIVE

To determine face and construct validity of a computer-based simulator for ERCP and assess its perceived utility as a training tool.

DESIGN

Novice and expert endoscopists completed 2 simulated ERCP cases by using the GI Mentor II.

SETTING

Virtual Education and Surgical Simulation Laboratory, Medical College of Georgia.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS

Outcomes included times to complete the procedure, reach the papilla, and use fluoroscopy; attempts to cannulate the papilla, pancreatic duct, and common bile duct; and number of contrast injections and complications. Subjects assessed simulator graphics, procedural accuracy, difficulty, haptics, overall realism, and training potential.

RESULTS

Only when performance data from cases A and B were combined did the GI Mentor II differentiate novices and experts based on times to complete the procedure, reach the papilla, and use fluoroscopy. Across skill levels, overall opinions were similar regarding graphics (moderately realistic), accuracy (similar to clinical ERCP), difficulty (similar to clinical ERCP), overall realism (moderately realistic), and haptics. Most participants (92%) claimed that the simulator has definite training potential or should be required for training.

LIMITATIONS

Small sample size, single institution.

CONCLUSIONS

The GI Mentor II demonstrated construct validity for ERCP based on select metrics. Most subjects thought that the simulated graphics, procedural accuracy, and overall realism exhibit face validity. Subjects deemed it a useful training tool. Study repetition involving more participants and cases may help confirm results and establish the simulator's ability to differentiate skill levels based on ERCP-specific metrics.

Global Assessment of Gastrointestinal Endoscopic Skills (GAGES): a valid measurement tool for technical skills in flexible endoscopy

BACKGROUND

Simulators may improve the efficiency, safety, and quality of endoscopic training. However, no objective, reliable, and valid tool exists to assess clinical endoscopic skills. Such a tool to measure the outcomes of educational strategies is a necessity. This multicenter, multidisciplinary trial aimed to develop instruments for evaluating basic flexible endoscopic skills and to demonstrate their reliability and validity.

METHODS

The Global Assessment of Gastrointestinal Endoscopic Skills (GAGES) Upper Endoscopy (GAGES-UE) and Colonoscopy (GAGES-C) are rating scales developed by expert endoscopists. The GAGES scale was completed by the attending endoscopist (A) and an observer (O) in self-assessment (S) during procedures to establish interrater reliability (IRR, using the intraclass correlation coefficient [ICC]) and internal consistency (IC, using Cronbach's alpha). Instrumentation was evaluated when possible and correlated with total scores. Construct and external validity were examined by comparing novice (NOV) and experienced (EXP) endoscopists (Student's t-test). Correlations were calculated for GAGES-UE and GAGES-C with participants who had performed both.

RESULTS

For the 139 completed evaluations (60 NOV, 79 EXP), IRR (A vs. O) was 0.96 for GAGES-UE and 0.97 for GAGES-C. The IRR between S and A was 0.78 for GAGES-UE and 0.89 for GAGES-C. The IC was 0.89 for GAGES-UE, and 0.95 for GAGES-C. There were mean differences between the NOV and the EXP endoscopists for GAGE-UE (14.4 +/- 3.7 vs. 18.5 +/- 1.6; p < 0.001) and GAGE-C (11.8 +/- 3.8 vs. 18.8 +/- 1.3; p < 0.001). Good correlation was found between the scores for the GAGE-UE and the GAGE-C (r = 0.75; n = 37). Instrumentation, when performed, demonstrated correlations with total scores of 0.84 (GAGE-UE; n = 73) and 0.86 (GAGE-C; n = 45).

CONCLUSIONS

The GAGES-UE and GAGES-C are easy to administer and consistent and meet high standards of reliability and validity. They can be used to measure the effectiveness of simulator training and to provide specific feedback. The GAGES results can be generalized to North American and European endoscopists and may contribute to the definition of technical proficiency in endoscopy.

Do increased training requirements in gastrointestinal endoscopy and advanced laparoscopy necessitate a paradigm shift? A survey of program directors in surgery

BACKGROUND

Many modifications to the traditional residency model contribute to the ongoing paradigm shift in surgical education; yet, the frequency and manner by which such changes occur at various institutions is less clear. To address this issue, our study examined the variability in endoscopy and laparoscopy training, the potential impact of new requirements, and opinions of Program Directors in Surgery (PDs).

METHODS

A 22-item online survey was sent to 251 PDs in the United States. Appropriate parametric tests determined significance.

RESULTS

In all, 105 (42%) PDs responded. No difference existed in response rates among university (56.2%), university-affiliated/community (30.5%), or community (13.3%) program types (p = 0.970). Surgeons alone (46.7%) conducted most endoscopy training with a trend toward multidisciplinary teams (43.8%). A combination of fellowship-trained minimally invasive surgeons and other surgeon types (66.7%) commonly provided laparoscopy training. For adequate endoscopy experience in the future, most PDs (74.3%) plan to require a formal flexible endoscopy rotation (p < 0.001). For laparoscopy, PDs intend for more minimally invasive surgery (59%) as well as colon and rectal surgery (53.4%) rotations (both p < 0.001). Respondents feel residents will perform diagnostic endoscopy (86.7%) and basic laparoscopy (100%) safely on graduation. Fewer PDs confirm graduates will safely practice therapeutic endoscopy (12.4%) and advanced laparoscopy (52.4%). PDs believe increased requirements for endoscopy and laparoscopy will improve procedural competency (79% and 92.4%, respectively) and strengthen the fields of surgical endoscopy and minimally invasive surgery (55.2% and 68.6%, respectively). Less believe new requirements necessitate redesign of cognitive and technical skills curricula (33.3% endoscopy, 28.6% laparoscopy; p = 0.018). A national surgical education curriculum should be a required component of resident training, according to 79% of PDs.

CONCLUSIONS

PDs employ and may implement varied tools to meet the increased requirements in endoscopy and laparoscopy. With such variability in educational methodology, establishment of a national surgical education curriculum is very important to most PDs.