Catharine M Walsh1, Simon C Ling2, Nitin Khanna3, Mary Anne Cooper4, Samir C Grover5, Gary May5, Thomas D Walters2, Linda Rabeneck6, Richard Reznick7, Heather Carnahan8. 1. Division of Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Nutrition, Hospital for Sick Children, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada; Department of Paediatrics, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada; The Wilson Centre, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. 2. Division of Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Nutrition, Hospital for Sick Children, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada; Department of Paediatrics, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. 3. Division of Gastroenterology, St. Joseph's Health Centre, University of Western Ontario, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. 4. Division of Gastroenterology, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada; Department of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. 5. Division of Gastroenterology, St. Michael's Hospital, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada; Department of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. 6. Cancer Care Ontario, Queen's University, Toronto, Ontario, Canada; Department of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. 7. Faculty of Health Sciences, Queen's University, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. 8. Centre for Ambulatory Care Education, Women's College Hospital, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada; The Wilson Centre, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Ensuring competence remains a seminal objective of endoscopy training programs, professional organizations, and accreditation bodies; however, no widely accepted measure of endoscopic competence currently exists. OBJECTIVE: By using Delphi methodology, we aimed to develop and establish the content validity of the Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Competency Assessment Tool for colonoscopy. DESIGN: An international panel of endoscopy experts rated potential checklist and global rating items for their importance as indicators of the competence of trainees learning to perform colonoscopy. After each round, responses were analyzed and sent back to the experts for further ratings until consensus was reached. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: Consensus was defined a priori as ≥80% of experts, in a given round, scoring ≥4 of 5 on all remaining items. RESULTS: Fifty-five experts agreed to be part of the Delphi panel: 43 gastroenterologists, 10 surgeons, and 2 endoscopy managers. Seventy-three checklist and 34 global rating items were generated through a systematic literature review and survey of committee members. An additional 2 checklist and 4 global rating items were added by Delphi panelists. Five rounds of surveys were completed before consensus was achieved, with response rates ranging from 67% to 100%. Seven global ratings and 19 checklist items reached consensus as good indicators of the competence of clinicians performing colonoscopy. LIMITATIONS: Further validation required. CONCLUSION: Delphi methodology allowed for the rigorous development and content validation of a new measure of endoscopic competence, reflective of practice across institutions. Although further evaluation is required, it is a promising step toward the objective assessment of competency for use in colonoscopy training, practice, and research.
BACKGROUND: Ensuring competence remains a seminal objective of endoscopy training programs, professional organizations, and accreditation bodies; however, no widely accepted measure of endoscopic competence currently exists. OBJECTIVE: By using Delphi methodology, we aimed to develop and establish the content validity of the Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Competency Assessment Tool for colonoscopy. DESIGN: An international panel of endoscopy experts rated potential checklist and global rating items for their importance as indicators of the competence of trainees learning to perform colonoscopy. After each round, responses were analyzed and sent back to the experts for further ratings until consensus was reached. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: Consensus was defined a priori as ≥80% of experts, in a given round, scoring ≥4 of 5 on all remaining items. RESULTS: Fifty-five experts agreed to be part of the Delphi panel: 43 gastroenterologists, 10 surgeons, and 2 endoscopy managers. Seventy-three checklist and 34 global rating items were generated through a systematic literature review and survey of committee members. An additional 2 checklist and 4 global rating items were added by Delphi panelists. Five rounds of surveys were completed before consensus was achieved, with response rates ranging from 67% to 100%. Seven global ratings and 19 checklist items reached consensus as good indicators of the competence of clinicians performing colonoscopy. LIMITATIONS: Further validation required. CONCLUSION: Delphi methodology allowed for the rigorous development and content validation of a new measure of endoscopic competence, reflective of practice across institutions. Although further evaluation is required, it is a promising step toward the objective assessment of competency for use in colonoscopy training, practice, and research.
Authors: Anna H de Vries; Arno M M Muijtjens; Hilde G J van Genugten; Ad J M Hendrikx; Evert L Koldewijn; Barbara M A Schout; Cees P M van der Vleuten; Cordula Wagner; Irene M Tjiam; Jeroen J G van Merriënboer Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2018-06-05 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: Rena Yadlapati; Rajesh N Keswani; Jody D Ciolino; David P Grande; Zoe I Listernick; Dustin A Carlson; Donald O Castell; Kerry B Dunbar; Andrew J Gawron; C Prakash Gyawali; Philip O Katz; David Katzka; Brian E Lacy; Stuart J Spechler; Roger Tatum; Marcelo F Vela; John E Pandolfino Journal: Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol Date: 2016-07-27 Impact factor: 11.382
Authors: Jacob Melchiors; Mikael Johannes Vuokko Henriksen; Frederik G Dikkers; Javier Gavilán; J Pieter Noordzij; Marvin P Fried; Daniel Novakovic; Johannes Fagan; Birgitte W Charabi; Lars Konge; Christian von Buchwald Journal: Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol Date: 2018-02-13 Impact factor: 2.503