Margaret L Boehler1, Nicole Roberts2, Hilary Sanfey1, John Mellinger3. 1. Department of Surgery, Southern Illinois University School of Medicine, Springfield, Illinois. 2. Medical Education and Academic Affairs Office, Sophie Davis School of Biomedical Education, City College of New York, New York, New York. 3. Department of Surgery, Southern Illinois University School of Medicine, Springfield, Illinois. Electronic address: jmellinger@siumed.edu.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) is a technically challenging procedure performed by both surgeons and gastroenterologists. There is controversy in the field regarding the training necessary to perform ERCP. Widely disparate requisite volumes of experience to achieve proficiency have been published by representatives of each specialty. The basis for these differences has not been fully explored, with particular reference to the cognitive mindset of the different specialties. METHODS: Structured cognitive task analytic interviews were conducted with 7 expert gastroenterologists and 4 expert surgeons from 4 institutions, each of whom performs ERCP as a common procedure in their clinical practice. A qualitative analysis and grounded theory approach was used, focusing specifically on duct cannulation as a critical procedural element. Transcripts were analyzed using Atlas.ti software. RESULTS: The qualitative analysis of 11 transcripts identified 173 unique codes from a total of 653 quotes. In all, 5 themes were found to describe the codes: judgment, teaching, techniques, principles, and equipment. Significant differences were noted between gastroenterologists and surgeons across these themes. Gastroenterologists placed emphasis on issues of judgment including rationale, and emphasized explanation and clarification in teaching. Surgeons placed more emphasis on use of visual cues, and emphasized technique and equipment nuances. CONCLUSION: The data suggest that gastroenterologists deconstruct ERCP competence based on application of rules and rationale through reflection. Surgeons focus more on visual and tactile cues in task deconstruction, and may be more likely to measure proficiency based on technical response to such cues. Based on this study, it is proposed that both specialties might have complementary roles in training therapeutic endoscopists.
INTRODUCTION: Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) is a technically challenging procedure performed by both surgeons and gastroenterologists. There is controversy in the field regarding the training necessary to perform ERCP. Widely disparate requisite volumes of experience to achieve proficiency have been published by representatives of each specialty. The basis for these differences has not been fully explored, with particular reference to the cognitive mindset of the different specialties. METHODS: Structured cognitive task analytic interviews were conducted with 7 expert gastroenterologists and 4 expert surgeons from 4 institutions, each of whom performs ERCP as a common procedure in their clinical practice. A qualitative analysis and grounded theory approach was used, focusing specifically on duct cannulation as a critical procedural element. Transcripts were analyzed using Atlas.ti software. RESULTS: The qualitative analysis of 11 transcripts identified 173 unique codes from a total of 653 quotes. In all, 5 themes were found to describe the codes: judgment, teaching, techniques, principles, and equipment. Significant differences were noted between gastroenterologists and surgeons across these themes. Gastroenterologists placed emphasis on issues of judgment including rationale, and emphasized explanation and clarification in teaching. Surgeons placed more emphasis on use of visual cues, and emphasized technique and equipment nuances. CONCLUSION: The data suggest that gastroenterologists deconstruct ERCP competence based on application of rules and rationale through reflection. Surgeons focus more on visual and tactile cues in task deconstruction, and may be more likely to measure proficiency based on technical response to such cues. Based on this study, it is proposed that both specialties might have complementary roles in training therapeutic endoscopists.