A128 GLOBAL TRENDS IN TRAINING AND CREDENTIALING GUIDELINES FOR GASTROINTESTINAL (GI) ENDOSCOPY: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW

Background

Credentialing in GI endoscopy is not a universally standardized process. National guidelines may provide a framework for local training, however in certain settings, training committees set minimal competency requirements that must be met before a clinician can be accredited to practice independently. There is a paucity of literature assessing the inter-societal and geographic variability in guidelines and training requirements in endoscopy.

Purpose

To systematically review the available credentialing guidelines proposed by different GI endoscopy societies and affiliated training committees internationally.

Method

We conducted a systematic review according to the PRISMA guidelines. A comprehensive literature search was performed for credentialing guidelines for GI endoscopy from inception until January 2022. Two reviewers screened and one reviewer abstracted data using a pre-defined data collection form.

Result(s)

From the 653 records obtained from our search, 20 credentialing guidelines from 12 different GI societies were ultimately included in the review. These guidelines encompassed the following procedures and outlined the following key-performance indicators; a) Colonoscopy: the recommended minimum number of procedures performed ranged from 150-275 with a minimum cecal intubation and adenoma detection rate of 85-90% and 20-30% respectively; b) EGD: the minimum number of procedures prior to credentialing ranged from 130-1000, the minimum duodenal intubation rate ranged from 95-100%, and the range for minimum number of upper GI bleeds managed was 20-45 (in addition to other procedural KPIs); c) ERCP: the recommended minimum number of procedures prior to credentialing ranged from 100-300 cases with a minimum selective duct cannulation rate of 80-90%. Guidelines for flexible sigmoidoscopy, EUS and capsule endoscopy were also obtained.

Image

Conclusion(s)

There is a general concordance amongst the various international GI societies with regards to minimum procedural volume and performance in key procedural tasks prior to credentialing, however the use of validated education assessment tools was lacking in the majority of guidelines. Additional KPI’s need to be explored for less routinely performed procedures such as EUS and capsule endoscopy.

Please acknowledge all funding agencies by checking the applicable boxes below

None

Disclosure of Interest

None Declared

A117 VALIDITY EVIDENCE FOR ENDOSCOPIC RETROGRADE CHOLANGIOPANCREATOGRAPHY COMPETENCY ASSESSMENT TOOLS: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW

Background

Assessment of competence in endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) is essential to ensure trainees possess the skills needed for independent practice. Traditionally, ERCP training has used the apprenticeship model, whereby novices learn skills under the supervision of an expert. A growing focus on procedural quality, however, has supported the implementation of competency-based medical education models which require documentation of a trainee’s competence for independent practice. Observational assessment tools with strong evidence of validity are critical to this process. Validity evidence supporting ERCP observational assessment tools has not been systematically evaluated.

Purpose

To conduct a systematic review of ERCP assessment tools and identify tools with strong evidence of validity using a unified validity evidence framework

Method

We conducted a systematic search using electronic databases and hand-searching from inception until August 2021 for studies evaluating observational assessment tools of ERCP performance. We used a unified validity framework to characterize validity evidence from five sources: content, response process, internal structure, relations to other variables, and consequences. Each domain was assigned a score of 0-3 (maximum score 15). We assessed educational utility and methodological quality using the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education framework and the Medical Education Research Quality Instrument, respectively.

Result(s)

From 2769 records, we included 17 studies evaluating 7 assessment tools. Five tools were studied for clinical ERCP, one on simulated ERCP, and one on simulated and clinical ERCP. Validity evidence scores ranged from 2-12. The Bethesda ERCP Skills Assessment Tool (BESAT), ERCP Direct Observation of Procedural Skills Tool (ERCP DOPS), and The Endoscopic Ultrasound (EUS) and ERCP Skills Assessment Tool (TEESAT) had the strongest validity evidence with scores of 10, 12, and 11, respectively. Regarding educational utility, most tools were easy to use and interpret, and required minimal additional resources. Overall methodological quality was strong, with scores ranging from 10-12.5 (maximum 13.5).

Conclusion(s)

The BESAT, ERCP DOPS, and TEESAT have strong validity evidence compared to other assessments. Integrating tools into training may help drive learners’ development and support competency decision-making.

Please acknowledge all funding agencies by checking the applicable boxes below

CAG

Disclosure of Interest

None Declared