Training in Capsule Endoscopy: Are We Lagging behind? Gastroenterol Res Pract. 2012;2012:175248. [PMID: 22566997 PMCID: PMC3332190 DOI: 10.1155/2012/175248]

Implementation of European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) recommendations for small-bowel capsule endoscopy into clinical practice: Results of an official ESGE survey

BACKGROUND

We aimed to document international practices in small-bowel capsule endoscopy (SBCE), measuring adherence to European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) technical and clinical recommendations.

METHODS

Participants reached through the ESGE contact list completed a 52-item web-based survey.

RESULTS

217 responded from 47 countries (176 and 41, respectively, from countries with or without a national society affiliated to ESGE). Of respondents, 45 % had undergone formal SBCE training. Among SBCE procedures, 91 % were performed with an ESGE recommended indication, obscure gastrointestinal bleeding (OGIB), iron-deficiency anemia (IDA), and suspected/established Crohn's disease being the commonest and with higher rates of positive findings (49.4 %, 38.2 % and 53.5 %, respectively). A watchful waiting strategy after a negative SBCE for OGIB or IDA was preferred by 46.7 % and 70.3 %, respectively. SBCE was a second-line exam for evaluation of extent of new Crohn's disease for 62.2 % of respondents. Endoscopists adhered to varying extents to ESGE technical recommendations regarding bowel preparation ( > 60 %), use in those with pacemaker holders (62.5 %), patency capsule use (51.2 %), and use of a validated scale for bowel preparation assessment (13.3 %). Of the respondents, 67 % read and interpreted the exams themselves and 84 % classified exams findings as relevant or irrelevant. Two thirds anticipated future increase in SBCE demand. Inability to obtain tissue (78.3 %) and high cost (68.1 %) were regarded as the main limitations, and implementation of artificial intelligence as the top development priority (56.2 %).

CONCLUSIONS

To some extent, endoscopists follow ESGE guidelines on using SBCE in clinical practice. However, variations in practice have been identified, whose implications require further evaluation.

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.

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

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Capsule endoscopy (CE) is an established, noninvasive modality for examining the small bowel. Minimum training requirements are based primarily on guidelines and expert opinion. A validated tool to assess the competence of CE is lacking. In this prospective, multicenter study, we determined the minimum number of CE procedures required to achieve competence during gastroenterology fellowship; validated a capsule competency test (CapCT); and evaluated any correlation between CE competence and endoscopy experience.

METHODS

We included second- and third-year gastroenterology fellows from 3 institutions between 2013 and 2018 in a structured CE training program with supervised CE interpretation. Fellows completed the CapCT with a maximal score of 100. For comparison, expert faculty completed the same CapCT. Trainee competence was defined as a score ≥90% compared with the mean expert score. Fellows were tested after 15, 25, and 35 supervised CE interpretations. CapCT was validated using expert consensus and item analysis. Data were collected on the number of previous endoscopies.

RESULTS

A total of 68 trainees completed 102 CapCTs. Fourteen CE experts completed the CapCT with a mean score of 94. Mean scores for fellows after 15, 25, and 35 cases were 83, 86, and 87, respectively. Fellows with at least 25 interpretations achieved a mean score ≥84 in all 3 institutions. CapCT item analysis showed high interobserver agreement among expert faculty (k = 0.85). There was no correlation between the scores and the number of endoscopies performed.

CONCLUSION

After a structured CE training program, gastroenterology fellows should complete a minimum of 25 supervised CE interpretations before assessing competence using the validated CapCT, regardless of endoscopy experience.

Training in video capsule endoscopy: Current status and unmet needs

Since its introduction to clinical practice nearly 20 years ago, wireless capsule endoscopy has revolutionized the landscape in the diagnosis and management of small bowel diseases. Over the past 10 years, capsule endoscopy has evolved beyond the small intestine and a range of capsules are now available to examine the esophagus, stomach and colon. Because of its ease of use, tolerability, paucity of complications and ability to visualize the entire gastrointestinal tract, capsule endoscopy has entered the mainstream of clinical practice. This review of the literature summarizes the current state of capsule training and highlights the limited data available to assess reader competence and standards expected of an independent practitioner. There are neither standardized teaching strategies nor national or international metrics for accreditation of physicians and non-physicians interested in mastering this examination. Summating the few publications, there appears to be consensus that diagnostic expertise improves with experience, and that trainees should be fully supervised for at least 20 full case studies. Formative and summative assessment is advisable and the number of taught cases should not be the sole determinant of competence. The review also highlights differences in recommendations from major national gastroenterology societies. Finally, the authors discuss areas of unmet needs in teaching and learning for capsule endoscopy.

Systematic review and meta-analysis of the performance of nurses in small bowel capsule endoscopy reading

INTRODUCTION

Increasing demands on healthcare systems mean that nurses are taking on more roles as physician extenders. Capsule endoscopy (CE) is a laborious procedure where specialist nurses could reduce physician workload and rationalise resource utilisation. The aim of this review and meta-analysis is to consolidate data on nurses' performance in small bowel CE (SBCE).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A comprehensive literature search was conducted for randomised controlled trials and comparative studies on nurses in SBCE reading compared to physicians. We examined the performance of nurses compared to SBCE-trained physicians.

RESULTS

Sixteen relevant studies were identified, with 820 SBCE examinations involving 20 nurses. 11/16 studies reported the numbers of SBCE findings detected. Overall, the pooled proportion of all findings reported by physicians and nurses was 86%. Studies involving nurses with endoscopic experience showed a summative detection rate of 89%. 7/16 studies reported the number of videos where there was agreement between the nurse and physicians for overall findings/diagnosis. The overall proportion of videos with agreement was 68%. In studies where nurses had endoscopy experience, the proportion of videos with agreement was 71%.

CONCLUSION

Our meta-analysis supports a more active role for nurses in SBCE reading. We suggest nurses can function as independent CE readers in general, given adequate training and formal credentialing.

A global perspective on capsule endoscopy

A search of the internet today to quantify the estimated value of capsules from a global perspective, easily delivers figures stating around $200 million in 2014 to about $400 million by 2020, which would be approximately 10% of the gastrointestinal endoscopic market. Is this a steep rise within just six years or could the capsule market do even better? What chances does this offer and what are the key aspects for future success? By 2020, more than 1 billion people are aged sixty or older and around one third of them will live in what the UN calls "more developed regions". Naturally, this brings an increased demand for colorectal cancer screening and surgery. But keeping in mind that basically every healthcare system, in any country, is already operating at its limits, how do we secure future treatment for a growing community? Surely more competition will steadily bring down prices for capsules. However, that does not ease the amount of time that is spent to properly read any video and issue a valid diagnosis for every patient. This article intends to give an overview about the current global market for capsule endoscopy (CE) with a perspective on typical patients, their indications, and how the capsules are used and by whom. Further aspects, such as standardization of training, reading and future trends will also be elaborated on.

International core curriculum for capsule endoscopy training courses

Capsule endoscopy (CE) has become a first-line noninvasive tool for visualisation of the small bowel (SB) and is being increasingly used for investigation of the colon. The European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) guidelines have specified requirements for the clinical applications of CE. However, there are no standardized recommendations yet for CE training courses in Europe. The following suggestions in this curriculum are based on the experience of European CE training courses directors. It is suggested that 12 hours be dedicated for either a small bowel capsule endoscopy (SBCE) or a colon capsule endoscopy (CCE) course with 4 hours for an introductory CCE course delivered in conjunction with SBCE courses. SBCE courses should include state-of-the-art lectures on indications, contraindications, complications, patient management and hardware and software use. Procedural issues require approximately 2 hours. For CCE courses 2.5 hours for theoretical lessons and 3.5 hours for procedural issued are considered appropriate. Hands-on training on reading and interpretation of CE cases using a personal computer (PC) for 1 or 2 delegates is recommended for both SBCE and CCE courses. A total of 6 hours hands-on session- time should be allocated. Cases in a SBCE course should cover SB bleeding, inflammatory bowel diseases (IBD), tumors and variants of normal and cases with various types of polyps covered in CCE courses. Standardization of the description of findings and generation of high-quality reports should be essential parts of the training. Courses should be followed by an assessment of trainees' skills in order to certify readers' competency.

Celiac Disease and Double-Balloon Enteroscopy: What Can We Achieve?: The Experience of 2 European Tertiary Referral Centers

BACKGROUND

Indications to double-balloon enteroscopy (DBE) are not standardized in celiac disease (CD).

GOALS

To evaluate the clinical usefulness of DBE in complicated CD.

STUDY

DBE findings in celiac patients with suspected small bowel (SB) complications were retrospectively evaluated in 2 tertiary referral centers (Milan and Sheffield). Demographic data of the studied cohort were compared with a database of 1000 noncomplicated CD patients.

RESULTS

Twenty-four CD cases (12 males, P=0.01 vs. controls) were reviewed. Mean age at CD diagnosis (y±SD) was 37±20 versus 27±18 and at SB evaluation 47±15 versus 38±13 (P<0.01 compared with controls). Indications for DBE were refractory CD (#9), gastrointestinal symptoms (#6), severe iron-deficiency anemia (#6), and long standing poor dietary adherence (#3). Two jejunal adenocarcinomas and an ileal neuroendocrine tumor were detected in presence of iron-deficiency anemia. Three type I and 3 type II refractory CD patients showed jejunal ulcerations; 2 of type II presented small white raised patches. Patchy atrophy was observed in nonadherent patients and in 2 on a gluten-free diet for a short time. Therapy was planned in 33% of patients after DBE. No adverse events were detected at follow-up [21 mo (range, 0 to 60 mo)].

CONCLUSIONS

This is the largest international study on the outcomes of DBE in CD demonstrating its usefulness to exclude/confirm malignant or premalignant conditions, associated with even minor lesions. Studies are needed to understand the clinical relevance of the SB endoscopic features and to optimize DBE indications.

Practical aspects of delivering a small bowel endoscopy service in the UK

Capsule endoscopy remains at the forefront of small bowel investigation, offering the only non-invasive means of directly imaging the mucosa of the small bowel. Recommended for the investigation of obscure gastrointestinal bleeding, Crohn's disease, coeliac disease, small bowel tumours and hereditary polyposis syndromes, the uptake of small bowel capsule endoscopy has been widespread in the UK. However, despite a wealth of published literature supporting the utility of capsule endoscopy in clinical practice, there are limited data regarding the actual practical aspects of service delivery, training and quality assurance. In this article, we attempt to address this by considering specific factors that contribute to provision of a high-quality capsule service. The role of formal training, accreditation and quality assurance measures is also discussed.

Training in small-bowel capsule endoscopy: assessing and defining competency

BACKGROUND

Minimum training for capsule endoscopy (CE) is based on societal guidelines and expert opinion. Objective measures of competence are lacking.

OBJECTIVES

Our objectives were to (1) establish structured CE training curriculum during a gastroenterology fellowship, (2) develop a formalized assessment tool to evaluate CE competency, (3) prospectively analyze trainee CE competency, (4) define metrics for trainee CE competence by using comparative data from CE staff, and (5) determine the correlation between CE competence and previous endoscopy experience.

DESIGN

Single-center, prospective analysis over 6 years.

SETTING

Tertiary academic center.

SUBJECTS

Gastroenterology fellows and CE staff.

INTERVENTIONS

Structured CE training was implemented with supervised CE interpretation. Capsule Competency Test (CapCT) was developed and data were collected on the number of CEs, upper endoscopies, colonoscopies, and push enteroscopies performed.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS

Trainee competence defined as CapCT score 90% or higher of the mean staff score.

RESULTS

A total of 39 fellows completed CE training and CapCT. Fellows were grouped according to number of completed CE interpretations: 10 or fewer (n = 13), 11 to 20 (n = 19), and 21 to 35 (n = 7). Eight CE staff completed CapCT with a mean score of 91%. Mean scores for trainees with fewer than 10, 11 to 20, and 21 to 35 CE interpretations were 79%, 79%, and 85%, respectively. A significant difference was seen between staff and fellow scores with 10 or fewer and 11 to 20 interpretations (P < .001). No correlation was found between trainee scores and previous endoscopy experience.

LIMITATIONS

Single center.

CONCLUSION

Using a structured CE training curriculum, we defined competency in CE interpretation by using the CapCT. Based on these findings, trainees should complete more than 20 CE studies before assessing competence, regardless of previous endoscopy experience.