S G Patel1, R Keswani2, G Elta1, S Saini1, P Menard-Katcher3, J Del Valle1, L Hosford3, A Myers1, D Ahnen3, P Schoenfeld1, S Wani3. 1. Division of Gastroenterology, Department of Internal Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA. 2. Division of Gastroenterology, Department of Internal Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, Illinois, USA. 3. Division of Gastroenterology, Department of Internal Medicine, University of Colorado, Aurora, Colorado, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) emphasizes the importance of medical trainees meeting specific performance benchmarks and demonstrating readiness for unsupervised practice. The aim of this study was to examine the readiness of Gastroenterology (GI) fellowship programs for competency-based evaluation in endoscopic procedural training. METHODS: ACGME-accredited GI program directors (PDs) and GI trainees nationwide completed an online survey of domains relevant to endoscopy training and competency assessment. Participants were queried about current methods and perceived quality of endoscopy training and assessment of competence. Participants were also queried about factors deemed important in endoscopy competence assessment. Five-point Likert items were analyzed as continuous variables by an independent t-test and χ(2)-test was used for comparison of proportions. RESULTS: Survey response rate was 64% (94/148) for PDs and 47% (546/1,167) for trainees. Twenty-three percent of surveyed PDs reported that they do not have a formal endoscopy curriculum. PDs placed less importance (1—very important to 5—very unimportant) on endoscopy volume (1.57 vs. 1.18, P<0.001), adenoma detection rate (2.00 vs. 1.53, P<0.001), and withdrawal times (1.96 vs. 1.68, P=0.009) in determining endoscopy competence compared with trainees. A majority of PDs report that competence is assessed by procedure volume (85%) and teaching attending evaluations (96%). Only a minority of programs use skills assessment tools (30%) or specific quality metrics (28%). Specific competencies are mostly assessed by individual teaching attending feedback as opposed to official documentation or feedback from a PD. PDs rate the overall quality of their endoscopy training and assessment of competence as better than overall ratings by trainees. CONCLUSIONS: Although the majority of PDs and trainees nationwide believe that measuring specific metrics is important in determining endoscopy competence, most programs still rely on procedure volume and subjective attending evaluations to determine overall competence. As medical training transitions from an apprenticeship model to competency-based education, there is a need for improved endoscopy curricula which are better suited to demonstrate readiness for unsupervised practice.
OBJECTIVES: The Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) emphasizes the importance of medical trainees meeting specific performance benchmarks and demonstrating readiness for unsupervised practice. The aim of this study was to examine the readiness of Gastroenterology (GI) fellowship programs for competency-based evaluation in endoscopic procedural training. METHODS:ACGME-accredited GI program directors (PDs) and GI trainees nationwide completed an online survey of domains relevant to endoscopy training and competency assessment. Participants were queried about current methods and perceived quality of endoscopy training and assessment of competence. Participants were also queried about factors deemed important in endoscopy competence assessment. Five-point Likert items were analyzed as continuous variables by an independent t-test and χ(2)-test was used for comparison of proportions. RESULTS: Survey response rate was 64% (94/148) for PDs and 47% (546/1,167) for trainees. Twenty-three percent of surveyed PDs reported that they do not have a formal endoscopy curriculum. PDs placed less importance (1—very important to 5—very unimportant) on endoscopy volume (1.57 vs. 1.18, P<0.001), adenoma detection rate (2.00 vs. 1.53, P<0.001), and withdrawal times (1.96 vs. 1.68, P=0.009) in determining endoscopy competence compared with trainees. A majority of PDs report that competence is assessed by procedure volume (85%) and teaching attending evaluations (96%). Only a minority of programs use skills assessment tools (30%) or specific quality metrics (28%). Specific competencies are mostly assessed by individual teaching attending feedback as opposed to official documentation or feedback from a PD. PDs rate the overall quality of their endoscopy training and assessment of competence as better than overall ratings by trainees. CONCLUSIONS: Although the majority of PDs and trainees nationwide believe that measuring specific metrics is important in determining endoscopy competence, most programs still rely on procedure volume and subjective attending evaluations to determine overall competence. As medical training transitions from an apprenticeship model to competency-based education, there is a need for improved endoscopy curricula which are better suited to demonstrate readiness for unsupervised practice.
Authors: Paul A Harris; Robert Taylor; Robert Thielke; Jonathon Payne; Nathaniel Gonzalez; Jose G Conde Journal: J Biomed Inform Date: 2008-09-30 Impact factor: 6.317
Authors: Robert E Sedlack; Walter J Coyle; Keith L Obstein; Mohammad A Al-Haddad; Gennadiy Bakis; Jennifer A Christie; Raquel E Davila; Barry DeGregorio; Christoper J DiMaio; Brintha K Enestvedt; Jennifer Jorgensen; Daniel K Mullady; Liz Rajan Journal: Gastrointest Endosc Date: 2013-11-14 Impact factor: 9.427
Authors: Douglas K Rex; Philip S Schoenfeld; Jonathan Cohen; Irving M Pike; Douglas G Adler; M Brian Fennerty; John G Lieb; Walter G Park; Maged K Rizk; Mandeep S Sawhney; Nicholas J Shaheen; Sachin Wani; David S Weinberg Journal: Gastrointest Endosc Date: 2014-12-02 Impact factor: 9.427
Authors: Charles J Kahi; David G Hewett; Dustin Lee Norton; George J Eckert; Douglas K Rex Journal: Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol Date: 2010-10-01 Impact factor: 11.382
Authors: Bret J Spier; Mark Benson; Patrick R Pfau; Gregory Nelligan; Michael R Lucey; Eric A Gaumnitz Journal: Gastrointest Endosc Date: 2009-07-31 Impact factor: 9.427
Authors: Swati G Patel; Rajesh N Keswani; John Del Valle; Philip Schoenfeld; Sachin Wani Journal: Am J Gastroenterol Date: 2015-11 Impact factor: 10.864
Authors: Sachin Wani; Rajesh Keswani; Matt Hall; Samuel Han; Meer Akbar Ali; Brian Brauer; Linda Carlin; Amitabh Chak; Dan Collins; Gregory A Cote; David L Diehl; Christopher J DiMaio; Andrew Dries; Ihab El-Hajj; Swan Ellert; Kimberley Fairley; Ashley Faulx; Larissa Fujii-Lau; Srinivas Gaddam; Seng-Ian Gan; Jonathan P Gaspar; Chitiki Gautamy; Stuart Gordon; Cynthia Harris; Sarah Hyder; Ross Jones; Stephen Kim; Srinadh Komanduri; Ryan Law; Linda Lee; Rawad Mounzer; Daniel Mullady; V Raman Muthusamy; Mojtaba Olyaee; Patrick Pfau; Shreyas Saligram; Cyrus Piraka; Amit Rastogi; Laura Rosenkranz; Fadi Rzouq; Aditi Saxena; Raj J Shah; Violette C Simon; Aaron Small; Jayaprakash Sreenarasimhaiah; Andrew Walker; Andrew Y Wang; Rabindra R Watson; Robert H Wilson; Patrick Yachimski; Dennis Yang; Steven Edmundowicz; Dayna S Early Journal: Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol Date: 2017-06-16 Impact factor: 11.382