P D James1, L Antonova2, M Martel3, A Barkun4. 1. Department of Medicine, The Ottawa Hospital, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada; Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada. Electronic address: pjames@toh.on.ca. 2. Department of Medicine, The Ottawa Hospital, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada; Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada. 3. Division of Gastroenterology, McGill University Health Center, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada. 4. Division of Gastroenterology, McGill University Health Center, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada; Epidemiology and Biostatistics and Occupational Health, McGill University Health Center, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The diversity, technical skills required, and risk inherent to advanced endoscopy techniques all contribute to complex training curricula and steep learning curves. Since trainees develop endoscopy skills at different rates, there has been a shift towards competency-based training and certification. Validated endoscopy performance measures for trainees are, therefore, necessary. The aim of this systematic review was to describe and critically assess the existing evidence regarding measures of performance for trainees in advanced endoscopy. METHODS: A systematic review of the literature from January 1980 to January 2016 was carried out using the MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, and ISI Web of knowledge databases. MeSH terms related to 'advanced endoscopy' and 'performance' were applied to a highly sensitive search strategy. The main outcomes were face, content, and construct validity, as well as reliability. RESULTS: The literature search yielded 1,662 studies and 77 met the inclusion criteria after abstract and full-text review (endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP)=23, endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)=30, colonoscopic polypectomy (CP)=11, balloon-assisted enteroscopy (BAE)=7, luminal stenting=3, radiofrequency ablation (RFA)=2, and endoscopic muscosal resection (EMR)=1). Good validity and reliability were found for measurement tools of overall performance in ERCP, EUS and CP, with applications for both patient-based and simulator training models. A number of specific technical skills were also shown to be valid measures of performance. These include: selective biliary cannulation, sphincterotomy, biliary stent placement, stone extraction and procedure time for ERCP; pancreatic solid mass T-staging, EUS-guided fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) procedure time, number of EUS-FNA passes and puncture precision for EUS; procedure time and en bloc resection rate for CP; retrograde fluoroscopy time for BAE; and mean number of endoscopy sessions required to achieve complete eradication of intestinal metaplasia (CIEM) for RFA. The evidence for EMR and luminal stenting is of insufficient quality to make recommendations. CONCLUSIONS: We have identified multiple valid and readily available performance measures for advanced endoscopy trainees for ERCP, EUS, CP, BAE and RFA procedures. These tools should be considered in advanced endoscopy training programs wishing to move away from apprenticeship-based training and towards competency-based learning with the help of patient-based and simulator tools.
INTRODUCTION: The diversity, technical skills required, and risk inherent to advanced endoscopy techniques all contribute to complex training curricula and steep learning curves. Since trainees develop endoscopy skills at different rates, there has been a shift towards competency-based training and certification. Validated endoscopy performance measures for trainees are, therefore, necessary. The aim of this systematic review was to describe and critically assess the existing evidence regarding measures of performance for trainees in advanced endoscopy. METHODS: A systematic review of the literature from January 1980 to January 2016 was carried out using the MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, and ISI Web of knowledge databases. MeSH terms related to 'advanced endoscopy' and 'performance' were applied to a highly sensitive search strategy. The main outcomes were face, content, and construct validity, as well as reliability. RESULTS: The literature search yielded 1,662 studies and 77 met the inclusion criteria after abstract and full-text review (endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP)=23, endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)=30, colonoscopic polypectomy (CP)=11, balloon-assisted enteroscopy (BAE)=7, luminal stenting=3, radiofrequency ablation (RFA)=2, and endoscopic muscosal resection (EMR)=1). Good validity and reliability were found for measurement tools of overall performance in ERCP, EUS and CP, with applications for both patient-based and simulator training models. A number of specific technical skills were also shown to be valid measures of performance. These include: selective biliary cannulation, sphincterotomy, biliary stent placement, stone extraction and procedure time for ERCP; pancreatic solid mass T-staging, EUS-guided fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) procedure time, number of EUS-FNA passes and puncture precision for EUS; procedure time and en bloc resection rate for CP; retrograde fluoroscopy time for BAE; and mean number of endoscopy sessions required to achieve complete eradication of intestinal metaplasia (CIEM) for RFA. The evidence for EMR and luminal stenting is of insufficient quality to make recommendations. CONCLUSIONS: We have identified multiple valid and readily available performance measures for advanced endoscopy trainees for ERCP, EUS, CP, BAE and RFA procedures. These tools should be considered in advanced endoscopy training programs wishing to move away from apprenticeship-based training and towards competency-based learning with the help of patient-based and simulator tools.
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
Authors: Umar Hayat; Caitlin Bakker; Ahmed Dirweesh; Mohammed Y Khan; Douglas G Adler; Hayrettin Okut; Noel Leul; Mohammad Bilal; Ali A Siddiqui Journal: Endosc Ultrasound Date: 2022 Jan-Feb Impact factor: 5.628
Authors: Usman Khan; Rishad Khan; Eric Benchimol; Misbah Salim; Jennifer Telford; Robert Enns; Rachid Mohamed; Nauzer Forbes; Gurpal Sandha; Ali Kohansal; Jeffrey Mosko; Avijit Chatterjee; Gary May; Kevin Waschke; Alan Barkun; Paul D James Journal: Endosc Int Open Date: 2022-09-14
Authors: Vinay Sehgal; Avi Rosenfeld; David G Graham; Gideon Lipman; Raf Bisschops; Krish Ragunath; Manuel Rodriguez-Justo; Marco Novelli; Matthew R Banks; Rehan J Haidry; Laurence B Lovat Journal: Gastroenterol Res Pract Date: 2018-08-29 Impact factor: 2.260