Randomized Controlled Trial of Self-directed Versus In-Classroom Education of Narrow Band Imaging in Diagnosing Colorectal Polyps Using the NICE Criteria

A scoping review of self-monitoring in graduate medical education

BACKGROUND

Physicians and physicians-in-training have repeatedly demonstrated poor accuracy of global self-assessments, which are assessments removed from the context of a specific task, regardless of any intervention. Self-monitoring, an in-the-moment self-awareness of one's performance, offers a promising alternative to global self-assessment. The purpose of this scoping review is to better understand the state of self-monitoring in graduate medical education.

METHODS

We performed a scoping review following Arksey and O'Malley's six steps: identifying a research question, identifying relevant studies, selecting included studies, charting the data, collating and summarising the results and consulting experts. Our search queried Ovid Medline, Web of Science, PsychINFO, Eric and EMBASE databases from 1 January 1999 to 12 October 2022.

RESULTS

The literature search yielded 5363 unique articles. The authors identified 77 articles for inclusion. The search process helped create a framework to identify self-monitoring based on time and context dependence. More than 20 different terms were used to describe self-monitoring, and only 13 studies (17%) provided a definition for the equivalent term. Most research focused on post-performance self-judgements of a procedural skill (n = 31, 42%). Regardless of task, studies focused on self-judgement (n = 66, 86%) and measured the accuracy or impact on performance of self-monitoring (n = 41, 71%). Most self-monitoring was conducted post-task (n = 65, 84%).

CONCLUSION

Self-monitoring is a time- and context-dependent phenomenon that seems promising as a research focus to improve clinical performance of trainees in graduate medical education and beyond. The landscape of current literature on self-monitoring is sparse and heterogeneous, suffering from a lack of theoretical underpinning, inconsistent terminology and insufficiently clear definitions.

Interactive training versus self-driven training in the prediction of colorectal polyp histology by trainees using the NICE classification

BACKGROUND

The COVID-19 pandemic has impacted endoscopic training of the Narrow Band Imaging International Colorectal Endoscopic (NICE) classification, which could accurately predict pathology of colorectal polyps. This study aimed to evaluate the diagnostic performance by trainees of self-driven training vs. interactive training in the prediction of colorectal polyp histology.

METHODS

This was a prospective randomized controlled study at five academic centers from January 1, 2021 to May 31, 2021. Trainees with no previous formal training of narrow band imaging or blue light imaging for prediction of colorectal polyp histology were randomly allocated to the self-driven training group or interactive training group. Before and after the training, all trainees were given 20 selected cases of colorectal polyp for testing. Their diagnostic performance was analyzed.

RESULTS

Overall, the two training groups showed similar accuracy of NICE classification (79.3% vs. 78.1%; P = 0.637), vessel analysis (77.8% vs. 77.6%, P = 0.939), and surface pattern analysis (78.1% vs. 76.9%, P = 0.616). The accuracy of color analysis in the interactive training group was better (74.4% vs. 80.0%, P = 0.027). For high-confidence predictions, the self-driven training group showed higher accuracy of NICE classification (84.8% vs. 78.7%, P < 0.001) but no difference for analysis of color (79.6% vs. 81.0%), vessel pattern (83.0% vs. 78.5%), and surface pattern (81.8% vs. 78.5%).

CONCLUSIONS

Overall, self-driven training showed comparable accuracy of NICE classification, vessel pattern, and surface pattern to interactive training, but lower accuracy of color analysis. This method showed comparable effectiveness and is more applicable than interactive training. It is worth spreading during the COVID-19 pandemic. Trial registration Name of the registry: Chinese Clinical Trial Registry, Trial registration number: ChiCTR2000031659, Date of registration: 06/04/2020, URL of trial registry record: http://www.chictr.org.cn/showproj.aspx?proj=51994.

JAG consensus statements for training and certification in flexible sigmoidoscopy

Introduction

Joint Advisory Group (JAG) certification in endoscopy is awarded when trainees attain minimum competency standards for independent practice. A national evidence-based review was undertaken to update standards for training and certification in flexible sigmoidoscopy (FS).

Methods

A modified Delphi process was conducted between 2019 and 2020 with multisociety representation from experts and trainees. Following literature review and Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations appraisal, recommendation statements on FS training and certification were formulated and subjected to anonymous voting to obtain consensus. Accepted statements were peer-reviewed by national stakeholders for incorporation into the JAG FS certification pathway.

Results

In total, 41 recommendation statements were generated under the domains of: definition of competence (13), acquisition of competence (17), assessment of competence (7) and postcertification support (4). The consensus process led to revised criteria for colonoscopy certification, comprising: (A) achieving key performance indicators defined within British Society of Gastroenterology standards (ie, rectal retroversion >90%, polyp retrieval rate >90%, patient comfort <10% with moderate-severe discomfort); (B) minimum procedure count ≥175; (C) performing 15+ procedures over the preceding 3 months; (D) attendance of the JAG Basic Skills in Lower gastrointestinal Endoscopy course; (E) satisfying requirements for formative direct observation of procedural skill (DOPS) and direct observation of polypectomy skill (SMSA level 1); (F) evidence of reflective practice as documented on the JAG Endoscopy Training System reflection tool and (G) successful performance in summative DOPS.

Conclusion

The UK standards for training and certification in FS have been updated to support training, uphold standards in FS and polypectomy, and provide support to the newly independent practitioner.

JAG consensus statements for training and certification in colonoscopy

Introduction

In the UK, endoscopy certification is awarded when trainees attain minimum competency standards for independent practice. A national evidence-based review was undertaken to update and develop standards and recommendations for colonoscopy training and certification.

Methods

Under the oversight of the Joint Advisory Group (JAG), a modified Delphi process was conducted between 2019 and 2020 with multisociety expert representation. Following literature review and Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations appraisal, recommendation statements on colonoscopy training and certification were formulated and subjected to anonymous voting to obtain consensus. Accepted statements were peer reviewed by JAG and relevant stakeholders for incorporation into the updated colonoscopy certification pathway.

Results

In total, 45 recommendation statements were generated under the domains of: definition of competence (13), acquisition of competence (20), assessment of competence (8) and postcertification support (4). The consensus process led to revised criteria for colonoscopy certification, comprising: (1) achieving key performance indicators defined within British Society of Gastroenterology standards (ie, unassisted caecal intubation rate >90%, rectal retroversion >90%, polyp detection rate >15%+, polyp retrieval rate >90%, patient comfort <10% with moderate–severe discomfort); (2) minimum procedure count 280+; (3) performing 15+ procedures over the preceding 3 months; (4) attendance of the JAG Basic Skills in Colonoscopy course; (5) terminal ileal intubation rates of 60%+ in inflammatory bowel disease; (6) satisfying requirements for formative direct observation of procedure skills (DOPS) and direct observation of polypectomy skills (Size, Morphology, Site, Access (SMSA) level 2); (7) evidence of reflective practice as documented on the JAG Endoscopy Training System reflection tool; (8) successful performance in summative DOPS.

Conclusion

The UK standards for training and certification in colonoscopy have been updated, culminating in a single-stage certification process with emphasis on polypectomy competency (SMSA Level 2+). These standards are intended to support training, improve standards of colonoscopy and polypectomy, and provide support to the newly independent practitioner.

Effect of educational lecture on the diagnostic accuracy of Japan NBI Expert Team classification for colorectal lesions

BACKGROUND

An educational and training program is required for generalization of Japan NBI Expert Team (JNET) classification. However, there is no detailed report on the learning curve of the diagnostic accuracy of endoscopists using JNET classification. We examined the effect of an educational lecture on beginners and less experienced endoscopists for improving their diagnostic accuracy of colorectal lesions by JNET classification.

METHODS

Seven beginners with no endoscopy experience (NEE group), 7 less experienced endoscopists (LEE group), and 3 highly experienced endoscopists (HEE group) performed diagnosis using JNET classification for randomized NBI images of colorectal lesions from 180 cases (Type 1: 22 cases, Type 2A: 105 cases, Type 2B: 33 cases, and Type 3: 20 cases). Next, the NEE and LEE groups received a lecture on JNET classification, and all 3 groups repeated the diagnostic process. We compared the correct diagnosis rate and interobserver agreement before and after the lecture comprehensively and for each JNET type.

RESULTS

In the HEE group, the correct diagnosis rate was more than 90% with good interobserver agreements (kappa value: 0.78-0.85). In the NEE and LEE groups, the correct diagnosis rate (NEE: 60.2 → 68.0%, P < 0.01; LEE: 66.4 → 86.7%, P < 0.01), high-confidence correct diagnosis rate (NEE: 19.6 → 37.2%, P < 0.01; LEE: 43.6 → 61.1%, P < 0.01), and interobserver agreement (kappa value, NEE: 0.32 → 0.43; LEE: 0.39 → 0.75) improved after the lecture. In the examination by each JNET type, the specificity and positive predictive value in the NEE and LEE groups generally improved after the lecture.

CONCLUSION

After conducting an appropriate lecture, the diagnostic ability using JNET classification was improved in beginners or endoscopists with less experience in NBI magnifying endoscopy.

Curriculum for optical diagnosis training in Europe: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Position Statement

This manuscript represents an official Position Statement of the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) aiming to guide general gastroenterologists to develop and maintain skills in optical diagnosis during endoscopy. In general, this requires additional training beyond the core curriculum currently provided in each country. In this context, ESGE have developed a European core curriculum for optical diagnosis practice across Europe for high quality optical diagnosis training. 1:  ESGE suggests that every endoscopist should have achieved general competence in upper and/or lower gastrointestinal (UGI/LGI) endoscopy before commencing training in optical diagnosis of the UGI/LGI tract, meaning personal experience of at least 300 UGI and/or 300 LGI endoscopies and meeting the ESGE quality measures for UGI/LGI endoscopy. ESGE suggests that every endoscopist should be able and competent to perform UGI/LGI endoscopy with high definition white light combined with virtual and/or dye-based chromoendoscopy before commencing training in optical diagnosis. 2:  ESGE suggests competency in optical diagnosis can be learned by attending a validated optical diagnosis training course based on a validated classification, and self-learning with a minimum number of lesions. If no validated training course is available, optical diagnosis can only be learned by attending a non-validated onsite training course and self-learning with a minimum number of lesions. 3:  ESGE suggests endoscopists are competent in optical diagnosis after meeting the pre-adoption and learning criteria, and meeting competence thresholds by assessing a minimum number of lesions prospectively during real-time endoscopy. ESGE suggests ongoing in vivo practice by endoscopists to maintain competence in optical diagnosis. If a competent endoscopist does not perform in vivo optical diagnosis on a regular basis, ESGE suggests repeating the learning and competence phases to maintain competence.Key areas of interest were optical diagnosis training in Barrett's esophagus, esophageal squamous cell carcinoma, early gastric cancer, diminutive colorectal lesions, early colorectal cancer, and neoplasia in inflammatory bowel disease. Condition-specific recommendations are provided in the main document.