Literature DB >> 18584274

Evaluation of formal feedback on endoscopic competence among trainees: the EFFECT trial.

G C Harewood1, F Murray, S Winder, S Patchett.   

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: The medical literature describes disparity in colonoscopy performance. This randomised, controlled study aimed to characterise the impact of feedback on colonoscopy performance among gastroenterology (GI) trainees.
METHODS: Gastroenterology trainees of similar experience levels who independently performed 581 colonoscopies over the study period were randomised to receive feedback/no feedback on their colonoscopy performance.
RESULTS: Baseline colonoscopy performance was similar in both groups. Following feedback, caecal intubation improved by 10.5% (from 72.9 to 83.4%, p = 0.04) in the feedback group and declined by 6.1% (from 78 to 71.9%, p = 0.2) in the control group; polyp detection improved by 5.1% (from 12.9 to 18.0%, p = 0.2) in the feedback group and by 2.9% (from 16.7 to 19.6%, p = 0.5) in the control group.
CONCLUSIONS: Systematic feedback appears to enhance colonoscopy performance among GI trainees.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2008        PMID: 18584274     DOI: 10.1007/s11845-008-0161-z

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ir J Med Sci        ISSN: 0021-1265            Impact factor:   1.568


  12 in total

1.  Colonoscopy practice patterns since introduction of medicare coverage for average-risk screening.

Authors:  Gavin C Harewood; David A Lieberman
Journal:  Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol       Date:  2004-01       Impact factor: 11.382

2.  Quality indicators for gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures: an introduction.

Authors:  Douglas O Faigel; Irving M Pike; Todd H Baron; Amitabh Chak; Jonathan Cohen; Stephen E Deal; Brenda Hoffman; Brian C Jacobson; Klaus Mergener; Bret T Petersen; John L Petrini; Douglas K Rex; Michael A Safdi
Journal:  Am J Gastroenterol       Date:  2006-04       Impact factor: 10.864

3.  Quality in colonoscopy: cecal intubation first, then what?

Authors:  Douglas K Rex
Journal:  Am J Gastroenterol       Date:  2006-04       Impact factor: 10.864

4.  Prospective assessment of the impact of feedback on colonoscopy performance.

Authors:  G C Harewood; B T Petersen; B J Ott
Journal:  Aliment Pharmacol Ther       Date:  2006-07-15       Impact factor: 8.171

5.  Impact of endoscopist withdrawal speed on polyp yield: implications for optimal colonoscopy withdrawal time.

Authors:  D T Simmons; G C Harewood; T H Baron; B T Petersen; K K Wang; F Boyd-Enders; B J Ott
Journal:  Aliment Pharmacol Ther       Date:  2006-09-15       Impact factor: 8.171

6.  One-time screening for colorectal cancer with combined fecal occult-blood testing and examination of the distal colon.

Authors:  D A Lieberman; D G Weiss
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2001-08-23       Impact factor: 91.245

7.  A prospective study of factors that determine cecal intubation time at colonoscopy.

Authors:  Crystal Bernstein; Michael Thorn; Kelly Monsees; Rhonda Spell; J Barry O'Connor
Journal:  Gastrointest Endosc       Date:  2005-01       Impact factor: 9.427

8.  Impact of colonoscopy preparation quality on detection of suspected colonic neoplasia.

Authors:  Gavin C Harewood; Virender K Sharma; Pat de Garmo
Journal:  Gastrointest Endosc       Date:  2003-07       Impact factor: 9.427

9.  A prospective study of colonoscopy practice in the UK today: are we adequately prepared for national colorectal cancer screening tomorrow?

Authors:  C J A Bowles; R Leicester; C Romaya; E Swarbrick; C B Williams; O Epstein
Journal:  Gut       Date:  2004-02       Impact factor: 23.059

10.  Colonoscopic miss rates for right-sided colon cancer: a population-based analysis.

Authors:  Brian Bressler; Lawrence F Paszat; Christopher Vinden; Cindy Li; Jingsong He; Linda Rabeneck
Journal:  Gastroenterology       Date:  2004-08       Impact factor: 22.682

View more
  6 in total

1.  Effective stepwise training and procedure standardization for young surgeons to perform laparoscopic left hepatectomy.

Authors:  Shinichiro Yamada; Mitsuo Shimada; Satoru Imura; Yuji Morine; Tetsuya Ikemoto; Yu Saito; Chie Takasu; Masato Yoshikawa; Hiroki Teraoku; Toshiaki Yoshimoto; Atsushi Takata
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2016-12-07       Impact factor: 4.584

Review 2.  Training in Endoscopy.

Authors:  Keith Siau; Neil D Hawkes; Paul Dunckley
Journal:  Curr Treat Options Gastroenterol       Date:  2018-09

3.  Probing forces of menisci: what levels are safe for arthroscopic surgery.

Authors:  Gabriëlle J M Tuijthof; Tim Horeman; Matthias U Schafroth; Leendert Blankevoort; Gino M M J Kerkhoffs
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2010-09-03       Impact factor: 4.342

4.  Public reporting of colonoscopy quality is associated with an increase in endoscopist adenoma detection rate.

Authors:  Heitham Abdul-Baki; Robert E Schoen; Katie Dean; Sherri Rose; Daniel A Leffler; Eliathamby Kuganeswaran; Michele Morris; David Carrell; Ateev Mehrotra
Journal:  Gastrointest Endosc       Date:  2015-10       Impact factor: 9.427

Review 5.  The impact of feedback of intraoperative technical performance in surgery: a systematic review.

Authors:  Abhishek Trehan; Ashton Barnett-Vanes; Matthew J Carty; Peter McCulloch; Mahiben Maruthappu
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2015-06-15       Impact factor: 2.692

6.  Impact of feedback on adenoma detection rate: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Umesha Boregowda; Madhav Desai; Venkat Nutalapati; Swathi Paleti; Mojtaba Olyaee; Amit Rastogi
Journal:  Ann Gastroenterol       Date:  2021-01-27
  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.