Simulated Colonoscopy Objective Performance Evaluation (SCOPE): a non-computer-based tool for assessment of endoscopic skills.

BACKGROUND: The Simulated Colonoscopy Objective Performance Evaluation (SCOPE) was developed to fill the need for a lower-cost, non-virtual-reality (VR)-based assessment tool. This study aimed to evaluate the ability of SCOPE to assess endoscopic skills objectively.
METHODS: Four tasks were created using the Kyoto Kagaku colonoscopy model (Kyoto Kagaku Co., Ltd., Kyoto, Japan). The SCOPE tasks included Scope Manipulation (SM) requiring torque and tip deflection to align a shape in the colon with a matching shape on the monitor; Tool Targeting (TT) requiring coordination with biopsy forceps to contact a metal target; Loop Management (LM) requiring prevention, recognition, and reduction of a redundant sigmoid colon with navigation to the cecum; and Mucosal Inspection (MI) requiring identification of simulated polyps during withdrawal and retroflexion. Key performance metrics were identified, and a normalized scoring system was developed. For the study, 35 subjects were stratified into three cohorts based on colonoscopy experience: novice (0-50 colonoscopies; n = 11), intermediate (51-139 colonoscopies; n = 13), and experienced (>140 colonoscopies; n = 11). The subjects performed two trials of all four tasks.
RESULTS: Across all four tasks, the experienced endoscopists (E) consistently outperformed the intermediates (I), who in turn outperformed the novices (N). The mean normalized scores with 95 % confidence intervals (CI) are as follows: SM: N (54; range, 26-82), I (92; range, 79-106), E (106; range, 93-118) (p = 0.0006). TT: N (40; range, 24-55), I (77; range, 63-91), E (88; range, 72-105) (p < 0.0001). LM: N (51; range, 24-79), I (80; range, 59-101), E (101; range, 98-105) (p = 0.003). MI: N (73; range, 53-92), I (85; range, 76-95), E (100; range, 91-108) (p = 0.013). Total score: N (218; range, 155-280), I (335; range, 299-371), E (395; range, 371-419) (p < 0.0001). The test-retest reliability (0.6) for the expert total score was respectable.
CONCLUSIONS: The validity evidence from this study shows that scores on SCOPE tasks can differentiate between groups expected to have different levels of technical skill. This model shows promise as a low-technology tool for objective assessment or training of endoscopic skills.