Self-assessment of Competence in Endoscopy: Challenges and Insights

UK endoscopy trainer survey: perspectives on current endoscopy training delivery, experience, barriers and opportunities

Objective

UK endoscopy training is delivered by trainers possessing well developed endoscopy and teaching skills to help learners perform high-quality endoscopy. Train The Trainer (TTT) courses are effective, but additional trainer support is variable with little formal quality assurance. We performed a survey to map UK endoscopy training, assess trainer perspectives on training delivery and identify factors that would enhance training.

Design/Method

An online survey was designed by trainer representatives, in collaboration with the JAG training committee, and collected responses from trainers registered on JAG endoscopy training system e-portfolio from April to June 2022.

Results

There were 1024 responses from all trainer disciplines, with 813 (79%) completing TTT courses and 584 (57%) having job planned dedicated training lists (DTLs). Clinical endoscopists most frequently had job-planned DTLs (71%), and DTLs occurring at least weekly (58%). 293 (29%) respondents participated as course faculty. Trainers reported high levels of pre-procedure preparation, effective dialogue and frequent feedback. The DOPS forms were 'always/often' completed by 81% of clinical endoscopists, 73% of gastroenterologist and 58% of surgeons. 435 (42%) trainers never had peer feedback. Responses suggested training could improve by protecting training time, attending courses, participating as faculty and receiving feedback from experienced trainers.

Conclusion

This survey demonstrates substantial proportions of highly motivated UK trainers who value time spent teaching and learning how to teach. Skills taught on the TTT courses are often actively used in everyday training. Improved trainer course access, protected training time and formal use of existing feedback tools by peers were highlighted as measures that could support trainers' development.

Training in basic gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures: a European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) and European Society of Gastroenterology and Endoscopy Nurses and Associates (ESGENA) Position Statement

This ESGE Position Statement provides structured and evidence-based guidance on the essential requirements and processes involved in training in basic gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopic procedures. The document outlines definitions; competencies required, and means to their assessment and maintenance; the structure and requirements of training programs; patient safety and medicolegal issues. 1:  ESGE and ESGENA define basic endoscopic procedures as those procedures that are commonly indicated, generally accessible, and expected to be mastered (technically and cognitively) by the end of any core training program in gastrointestinal endoscopy. 2:  ESGE and ESGENA consider the following as basic endoscopic procedures: diagnostic upper and lower GI endoscopy, as well as a limited range of interventions such as: tissue acquisition via cold biopsy forceps, polypectomy for lesions ≤ 10 mm, hemostasis techniques, enteral feeding tube placement, foreign body retrieval, dilation of simple esophageal strictures, and India ink tattooing of lesion location. 3:  ESGE and ESGENA recommend that training in GI endoscopy should be subject to stringent formal requirements that ensure all ESGE key performance indicators (KPIs) are met. 4:  Training in basic endoscopic procedures is a complex process and includes the development and acquisition of cognitive, technical/motor, and integrative skills. Therefore, ESGE and ESGENA recommend the use of validated tools to track the development of skills and assess competence. 5:  ESGE and ESGENA recommend incorporating a multimodal approach to evaluating competence in basic GI endoscopic procedures, including procedural thresholds and the measurement and documentation of established ESGE KPIs. 7:  ESGE and ESGENA recommend the continuous monitoring of ESGE KPIs during GI endoscopy training to ensure the trainee's maintenance of competence. 9:  ESGE and ESGENA recommend that GI endoscopy training units fulfil the ESGE KPIs for endoscopy units and, furthermore, be capable of providing the dedicated personnel, infrastructure, and sufficient case volume required for successful training within a structured training program. 10:  ESGE and ESGENA recommend that trainers in basic GI endoscopic procedures should be endoscopists with formal educational training in the teaching of endoscopy, which allows them to successfully and safely teach trainees.

Pediatric endoscopy: how can we improve patient outcomes and ensure best practices?

INTRODUCTION

Strategies to promote high-quality endoscopy in children require consensus around pediatric-specific quality standards and indicators. Using a rigorous guideline development process, the international Pediatric Endoscopy Quality Improvement Network (PEnQuIN) was developed to support continuous quality improvement efforts within and across pediatric endoscopy services.

AREAS COVERED

This review presents a framework, informed by the PEnQuIN guidelines, for assessing endoscopist competence, granting procedural privileges, audit and feedback, and for skill remediation, when required. As is critical for promoting quality, PEnQuIN indicators can be benchmarked at the individual endoscopist, endoscopy facility, and endoscopy community levels. Furthermore, efforts to incorporate technologies, including electronic medical records and artificial intelligence, into endoscopic quality improvement processes can aid in creation of large-scale networks to facilitate comparison and standardization of quality indicator reporting across sites.

EXPERT OPINION

PEnQuIN quality standards and indicators provide a framework for continuous quality improvement in pediatric endoscopy, benefiting individual endoscopists, endoscopy facilities, and the broader endoscopy community. Routine and reliable measurement of data, facilitated by technology, is required to identify and drive improvements in care. Engaging all stakeholders in endoscopy quality improvement processes is crucial to enhancing patient outcomes and establishing best practices for safe, efficient, and effective pediatric endoscopic care.

Nurses' knowledge and self-assessment of their clinical experiences of intraosseous access: A multicentre cross-sectional study

BACKGROUND

Intraosseous access is an effective and safe option when difficult vascular access occurs. The knowledge, competence, and clinical experience of nurses are collectively essential for the successful implementation of this approach in clinical practice. Education and clinical learning are the main pillars supporting this new practice to ensure patient safety. The aim of this study was to identify the nurses' knowledge and clinical experience of intraosseous access and the factors associated with the adoption of this procedure.

METHODS

A cross-sectional study was carried out from October to December 2020. A convenience sample of 432 nurses from four Italian hospitals were involved. A structured questionnaire was used to assess the nurses' knowledge of the intraosseous access guidelines and their clinical experience.

RESULTS

Most participants were female (71.5%) with more than 10 years of experience (63.7%) working in an emergency (38.9%) and medical (37.7%) setting. Most of the participants demonstrated their knowledge of the use of a device e.g., it is used if vascular access is not rapidly achieved in a child (83.1%) and the boluses of liquids required in the intraosseous procedure (72.7%). A few participants reported having placed intraosseous access (3.5%). A higher level of educational preparation and working in emergency and paediatric settings were associated with increased knowledge.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings highlighted a sub-optimal level of knowledge of the IO procedure, little experience of this practice in clinical contexts, also associated with a lack of adequate protocols and devices available to nurses. Nurses need to develop their knowledge and practice the skill clinically to embed this practice. University and nurse educators should emphasise the relevance of this practice in nursing education and training, so as to improve the nursing care practice and level of patient safety.

Accuracy of self-assessment in gastrointestinal endoscopy: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Assessment is necessary to ensure both attainment and maintenance of competency in gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy, and this can be accomplished through self-assessment. We conducted a systematic review with meta-analysis to evaluate the accuracy of self-assessment among GI endoscopists.

METHODS

This was an individual participant data meta-analysis of studies that investigated self-assessment of endoscopic competency. We performed a systematic search of the following databases: Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid EMBASE, Wiley Cochrane CENTRAL, and ProQuest Education Resources Information Center. We included studies if they were primary investigations of self-assessment accuracy in GI endoscopy that used statistical analyses to determine accuracy. We conducted a meta-analysis of studies using a limits of agreement (LoA) approach to meta-analysis of Bland-Altman studies.

RESULTS

After removing duplicate entries, we screened 7138 records. After full-text review, we included 16 studies for qualitative analysis and three for meta-analysis. In the meta-analysis, we found that the LoA were wide (-41.0 % to 34.0 %) and beyond the clinically acceptable difference. Subgroup analyses found that both novice and intermediate endoscopists had wide LoA (-45.0 % to 35.1 % and -54.7 % to 46.5 %, respectively) and expert endoscopists had narrow LoA (-14.2 % to 21.4 %).

CONCLUSIONS

GI endoscopists are inaccurate in self-assessment of their endoscopic competency. Subgroup analyses demonstrated that novice and intermediate endoscopists were inaccurate, while expert endoscopists have accurate self-assessment. While we advise against the sole use of self-assessment among novice and intermediate endoscopists, expert endoscopists may wish to integrate it into their practice.

Endoscopy training in Australia during COVID-19: Efficacy and knowledge assessment of gastroenterology and general surgery trainees

Background and Aim

During COVID-19, restrictions to elective endoscopy were introduced worldwide. A reduction in procedures may impact trainees' endoscopy learning. This study aims to assess Australian advanced gastroenterology and general surgery trainees' self-perceived efficacy and knowledge in endoscopy during the pandemic.

Methods

All Australian gastroenterology and general surgery trainees in their last 2 years of accredited training were invited to participate through email (2020-2021 and 2021-2022 training cycles). The primary outcome was to assess trainees' self-efficacy and knowledge regarding gastrointestinal endoscopy. Secondary outcomes included subgroup analysis between gastroenterology and general surgery trainees. Self-perceived efficacy was assessed with Likert-scale questions on 20 endoscopy procedures and knowledge was assessed through 21 endoscopy-related multiple choice questions.

Results

Eighty-one trainees responded to a self-efficacy questionnaire and 77 responded to the knowledge questionnaire. Over 90% of the trainees were confident or extremely confident in diagnostic endoscopy, but only half demonstrated similar efficacy for therapeutic endoscopy. The efficacy for basic endoscopy procedures was higher for gastroenterology trainees (64.0% vs 51.1%, P < 0.001). Last-year trainee achievement of conjoint committee requirements for upper gastrointestinal endoscopy was achieved in 95.8% of gastroenterology trainees versus 22.2% of surgical trainees (P < 0.001). The median score on the knowledge questionnaire was also higher for the gastroenterology subset (90.5% vs 71.4%, P < 0.001).

Conclusion

During COVID-19, endoscopy trainees' self-efficacy in endoscopic diagnostic procedures was achieved for most trainees. The differences in self-perceived efficacy and knowledge between gastroenterology and surgical trainees may be reflective of the different opportunities for learning between the two groups.