Effectiveness of a novel endoscopy training concept

Endoscopy training in the Netherlands: a national survey among gastroenterology residents

Background and study aims  Training in endoscopy is a key objective of gastroenterology residency. There is currently no standardized or systematic training approach. This study evaluated and compared the current status of gastrointestinal endoscopy training programs in all teaching hospitals in the Netherlands from a resident perspective. Materials and methods  A national online survey with open and closed questions on gastrointestinal endoscopy training was administered to all gastroenterology residents (N = 180) in the eight educational regions in the Netherlands. Results  One hundred residents who had already started endoscopy training were included in the analyses. Sixty-five residents (65 %) were satisfied with their endoscopy training program. Participation in a preclinical endoscopy course was mandatory in seven of eight educational regions. Residents from the region without a mandatory endoscopy training course were significantly less likely to be satisfied with their endoscopy training program (32 %, P  = .011). Criteria used to determine the level of supervision differed greatly between teaching hospitals (e. g. assessed endoscopy competence, predefined period of time or number of procedures). Only 26 residents (26 %) reported uniformity in teaching methods and styles between different supervising gastroenterologists in their teaching hospital. Conclusions  Although most gastroenterology residents were satisfied with the endoscopy training program and endoscopy supervision in their teaching hospital, this study identified considerable local and regional variability. Future studies should be conducted to evaluate the trainers' perspective and trainers' behavior during endoscopy training sessions, which might eventually lead to the development of best practices regarding endoscopy training, including standardization of training programs and supervision methods.

The Impact of a Structured Virtual Reality Simulation Training Curriculum for Novice Endoscopists

Background

Current evidence supports the use of virtual reality (VR) simulation-based training for novice endoscopists. However, there is still a need for a standardized induction programme which ensures sufficient preparation, with knowledge and basic skills, before their approach to patient-based training. We designed a structured progressive programme in upper endoscopy and colonoscopy and aimed to determine its impact on cognitive and technical performance.

Methods

Prospective, multicentre study, focused on "Endoscopy I, 2018," a course with a theoretical and a hands-on module (20 h) in the GI Mentor II®. Gastroenterology residents of the 1st year were enrolled. A pre-test and test were applied to evaluate the cognitive component, and a pre-training and post-training esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) and colonoscopy VR cases were used to evaluate the technical component. The hands-on training included psychomotor exercises (Navigation I, Endobubble I), 4 EGD, and 4 colonoscopy VR cases. The metrics applied for technical skills evaluation were time to reach the second portion of duodenum (D2)/cecum (seconds), efficiency of screening (%), and time the patient was in pain (%).

Results

Twenty-three participants were included, majority female (67%), 26 ± 0.7 years old. Comparing the pre-test versus test, the cognitive score significantly improved (11/15 vs. 14/15; p < 0.001). Considering the technical assessment after training: in EGD, the time to D2 was significantly lower (193 vs. 63 s; p < 0.001), and the efficiency of screening significantly better (64 vs. 91%; p < 0.001); in colonoscopy, the time to reach the cecum was significantly lower (599 vs. 294 s; p = 0.001), the time the patient was in pain was significantly lower (27 vs. 10%; p = 0.005), and the efficiency of screening had a tendency towards improvement (50 vs. 68%; p = 0.062).

Conclusion

The proposed training curriculum in basic endoscopy for novices is aligned with international recommendations and demonstrated a significant impact on cognitive and technical skills learning achievements.

Development and Pilot Validation of an Instrument Assessing Sensorimotor Skills for Percutaneous Gastral Puncture

Introduction

The acquisition of sensorimotor skills, so-called "technical skills", plays an essential part in the professional and continuing educational training of medical and nursing staff. Facilities turn to simulator training to promote the safe and accurate performance of endoscopic examinations. Thus, this study aimed to develop and pilot-test a corresponding assessment instrument to monitor necessary sensorimotor or "technical" skills of the examiner for a safe percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (AS-PEG).

Materials and Methods

Instrument development and pilot validation involved four stages: identification of potential items and initial draft of the AS-PEG; expert panel with 11 experts (content validity index [CVI] calculated); empirical validation using a quasi-experimental intervention on simulators; revision of the pilot AS-PEG taking expert assessment, and empirical testing into consideration.

Results

The initial instrument yielded 13 categories and 44 items describing the PEG procedure. Experts rated 30 out of 44 items (68%) extremely or very important for the safety of the puncture of the stomach. Initial item-CVIs ranged from 0.00 to 1.00; scale-CVI was 0.61. Twenty-four trainees (7 physicians, 17 nurses) participated in the pilot simulation study. On average, 8:25 min were required for PEG placement (min-max 5:59-13:38 min, SD = 1:43). The revised AS-PEG version was reduced to 14 items with a range of the item CVI from 0.8 to 1.0, and a scale-CVI of 0.90.

Conclusion

The AS-PEG instrument facilitates the evaluation of sensorimotor skills during percutaneous gastric puncture procedures within the context of PEG placement, across professions and without relating to the number of procedures previously performed. The instrument is economical and shows satisfying content validity.

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.

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. PLoS One. 2014;9:e89224. [PMID: 24586609 PMCID: PMC3931711 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0089224]

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; I² = 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.