AIM: To use a survey to characterize and identify potential barriers to the use of digital chromoendoscopy (DC) by practicing gastroenterologists. METHODS: An anonymous, internet-based survey was sent to gastroenterologists in Connecticut who were members of one of three national gastrointestinal organizations. The survey collected demographic information, frequency of DC use, types of procedures that the respondent performs, setting of practice (academic vs community), years out of training, amount of training in DC, desire to have DC training and perceived barriers to DC use. Responses were collected anonymously. The primary endpoint was the proportion of endoscopists utilizing DC. Associations between the various data collected were analyzed using χ(2) test. RESULTS: One hundred and twenty-four gastroenterologists (48%) of 261 who received the online survey responded. Seventy-eight percent of surveyed gastroenterologists have used DC during the performance of upper endoscopy and 81% with lower endoscopy. DC was used in more than half of procedures by only 14% of gastroenterologists during upper endoscopy and 12% during lower endoscopy. Twenty-three percent (upper) and 21% (lower) used DC more than one quarter of the time. DC was used for 10% or less of endoscopies by 60% (upper) and 53% (lower) of respondents. Endoscopists reported lack of training as the leading deterrent to DC use with 36% reporting it as their primary deterrent. Eighty-nine percent of endoscopists never received formal training in DC. Lack of time (30% of respondents), lack of evidence (24%) and lack of reimbursement (10%) were additional deterrents. There were no differences in DC use relative to academic vs community practice setting or years out of training. CONCLUSION: DC is used infrequently by most endoscopists, primarily due to a lack of training. Training opportunities should be expanded to meet the interest expressed by the majority of endoscopists.
AIM: To use a survey to characterize and identify potential barriers to the use of digital chromoendoscopy (DC) by practicing gastroenterologists. METHODS: An anonymous, internet-based survey was sent to gastroenterologists in Connecticut who were members of one of three national gastrointestinal organizations. The survey collected demographic information, frequency of DC use, types of procedures that the respondent performs, setting of practice (academic vs community), years out of training, amount of training in DC, desire to have DC training and perceived barriers to DC use. Responses were collected anonymously. The primary endpoint was the proportion of endoscopists utilizing DC. Associations between the various data collected were analyzed using χ(2) test. RESULTS: One hundred and twenty-four gastroenterologists (48%) of 261 who received the online survey responded. Seventy-eight percent of surveyed gastroenterologists have used DC during the performance of upper endoscopy and 81% with lower endoscopy. DC was used in more than half of procedures by only 14% of gastroenterologists during upper endoscopy and 12% during lower endoscopy. Twenty-three percent (upper) and 21% (lower) used DC more than one quarter of the time. DC was used for 10% or less of endoscopies by 60% (upper) and 53% (lower) of respondents. Endoscopists reported lack of training as the leading deterrent to DC use with 36% reporting it as their primary deterrent. Eighty-nine percent of endoscopists never received formal training in DC. Lack of time (30% of respondents), lack of evidence (24%) and lack of reimbursement (10%) were additional deterrents. There were no differences in DC use relative to academic vs community practice setting or years out of training. CONCLUSION:DC is used infrequently by most endoscopists, primarily due to a lack of training. Training opportunities should be expanded to meet the interest expressed by the majority of endoscopists.
Entities:
Keywords:
Clinical practice patterns; Colonic neoplasms; Endoscopy; Esophageal neoplasms; Flexible spectral imaging color enhancement; Gastrointestinal diseases; I-scan; Narrow band imaging; Surveys and questionnaires
Authors: Prateek Sharma; Robert H Hawes; Ajay Bansal; Neil Gupta; Wouter Curvers; Amit Rastogi; Mandeep Singh; Matt Hall; Sharad C Mathur; Sachin B Wani; Brenda Hoffman; Srinivas Gaddam; Paul Fockens; Jacques J Bergman Journal: Gut Date: 2012-02-07 Impact factor: 23.059
Authors: Linda K Wanders; James E East; Sanne E Uitentuis; Mariska M G Leeflang; Evelien Dekker Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2013-11-13 Impact factor: 41.316
Authors: Douglas K Rex; Charles Kahi; Michael O'Brien; T R Levin; Heiko Pohl; Amit Rastogi; Larry Burgart; Tom Imperiale; Uri Ladabaum; Jonathan Cohen; David A Lieberman Journal: Gastrointest Endosc Date: 2011-03 Impact factor: 9.427
Authors: Sarah K McGill; Roy Soetikno; Amit Rastogi; Robert V Rouse; Tohru Sato; Ajay Bansal; Kenneth McQuaid; Tonya Kaltenbach Journal: Endoscopy Date: 2014-09-29 Impact factor: 10.093
Authors: David Lieberman; Joel Brill; Marcia Canto; Daniel DeMarco; Brian Fennerty; Neil Gupta; Loren Laine; Charles Lightdale; Elizabeth Montgomery; Robert Odze; Douglas Rex; Prateek Sharma; Michael Kochman; Jeffrey Tokar Journal: Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol Date: 2015-07-17 Impact factor: 11.382
Authors: A Hoffman; C Kagel; M Goetz; A Tresch; J Mudter; S Biesterfeld; P R Galle; M F Neurath; R Kiesslich Journal: Dig Liver Dis Date: 2009-05-26 Impact factor: 4.088