Pichamol Jirapinyo1,2, Wasif M Abidi1,2, Hiroyuki Aihara1,2, Theodore Zaki3, Cynthia Tsay3, Avlin B Imaeda3,4, Christopher C Thompson5,6. 1. Division of Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Endoscopy, Brigham and Women's Hospital, 75 Francis Street, Boston, MA, 02115, USA. 2. Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA. 3. Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, CT, USA. 4. VA Connecticut Healthcare System, West Haven, CT, USA. 5. Division of Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Endoscopy, Brigham and Women's Hospital, 75 Francis Street, Boston, MA, 02115, USA. cthompson@hms.harvard.edu. 6. Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA. cthompson@hms.harvard.edu.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Preclinical simulator training has the potential to decrease endoscopic procedure time and patient discomfort. This study aims to characterize the learning curve of endoscopic novices in a part-task simulator and propose a threshold score for advancement to initial clinical cases. METHODS: Twenty novices with no prior endoscopic experience underwent repeated endoscopic simulator sessions using the part-task simulator. Simulator scores were collected; their inverse was averaged and fit to an exponential curve. The incremental improvement after each session was calculated. Plateau was defined as the session after which incremental improvement in simulator score model was less than 5%. Additionally, all participants filled out questionnaires regarding simulator experience after sessions 1, 5, 10, 15, and 20. A visual analog scale and NASA task load index were used to assess levels of comfort and demand. RESULTS: Twenty novices underwent 400 simulator sessions. Mean simulator scores at sessions 1, 5, 10, 15, and 20 were 78.5 ± 5.95, 176.5 ± 17.7, 275.55 ± 23.56, 347 ± 26.49, and 441.11 ± 38.14. The best fit exponential model was [time/score] = 26.1 × [session #]-0.615; r 2 = 0.99. This corresponded to an incremental improvement in score of 35% after the first session, 22% after the second, 16% after the third and so on. Incremental improvement dropped below 5% after the 12th session corresponding to the predicted score of 265. Simulator training was related to higher comfort maneuvering an endoscope and increased readiness for supervised clinical endoscopy, both plateauing between sessions 10 and 15. Mental demand, physical demand, and frustration levels decreased with increased simulator training. CONCLUSION: Preclinical training using an endoscopic part-task simulator appears to increase comfort level and decrease mental and physical demand associated with endoscopy. Based on a rigorous model, we recommend that novices complete a minimum of 12 training sessions and obtain a simulator score of at least 265 to be best prepared for clinical endoscopy.
BACKGROUND: Preclinical simulator training has the potential to decrease endoscopic procedure time and patient discomfort. This study aims to characterize the learning curve of endoscopic novices in a part-task simulator and propose a threshold score for advancement to initial clinical cases. METHODS: Twenty novices with no prior endoscopic experience underwent repeated endoscopic simulator sessions using the part-task simulator. Simulator scores were collected; their inverse was averaged and fit to an exponential curve. The incremental improvement after each session was calculated. Plateau was defined as the session after which incremental improvement in simulator score model was less than 5%. Additionally, all participants filled out questionnaires regarding simulator experience after sessions 1, 5, 10, 15, and 20. A visual analog scale and NASA task load index were used to assess levels of comfort and demand. RESULTS: Twenty novices underwent 400 simulator sessions. Mean simulator scores at sessions 1, 5, 10, 15, and 20 were 78.5 ± 5.95, 176.5 ± 17.7, 275.55 ± 23.56, 347 ± 26.49, and 441.11 ± 38.14. The best fit exponential model was [time/score] = 26.1 × [session #]-0.615; r 2 = 0.99. This corresponded to an incremental improvement in score of 35% after the first session, 22% after the second, 16% after the third and so on. Incremental improvement dropped below 5% after the 12th session corresponding to the predicted score of 265. Simulator training was related to higher comfort maneuvering an endoscope and increased readiness for supervised clinical endoscopy, both plateauing between sessions 10 and 15. Mental demand, physical demand, and frustration levels decreased with increased simulator training. CONCLUSION: Preclinical training using an endoscopic part-task simulator appears to increase comfort level and decrease mental and physical demand associated with endoscopy. Based on a rigorous model, we recommend that novices complete a minimum of 12 training sessions and obtain a simulator score of at least 265 to be best prepared for clinical endoscopy.
Entities:
Keywords:
Education; Endoscopy; FES; Simulator; Test; Training
Authors: Douglas G Adler; Gennadiy Bakis; Walter J Coyle; Barry DeGregorio; Kulwinder S Dua; Linda S Lee; Lee McHenry; Shireen A Pais; Elizabeth Rajan; Robert E Sedlack; Vanessa M Shami; Ashley L Faulx Journal: Gastrointest Endosc Date: 2011-12-07 Impact factor: 9.427
Authors: A Ferlitsch; R Schoefl; A Puespoek; W Miehsler; M Schoeniger-Hekele; H Hofer; A Gangl; M Homoncik Journal: Endoscopy Date: 2010-10-22 Impact factor: 10.093
Authors: Jae Il Chung; Nayoung Kim; Min Sik Um; Kyung Phil Kang; Donghun Lee; Jong Chun Na; Eun Sil Lee; Yeon Mu Chung; Ji Yeon Won; Kwang Ho Lee; Tek Man Nam; Jung Hun Lee; Hyun Chul Choi; Sang Hyub Lee; Young Soo Park; Jin Hyuk Hwang; Jin-Wook Kim; Sook-Hyang Jeong; Dong Ho Lee Journal: Gut Liver Date: 2010-03-25 Impact factor: 4.519
Authors: Jonathan Cohen; Seth A Cohen; Kinjal C Vora; Xiaonan Xue; J Steven Burdick; Simmy Bank; Edmund J Bini; Henry Bodenheimer; Maurice Cerulli; Hans Gerdes; David Greenwald; Frank Gress; Irwin Grosman; Robert Hawes; Gerard Mullin; Gerard Mullen; Felice Schnoll-Sussman; Anthony Starpoli; Peter Stevens; Scott Tenner; Gerald Villanueva Journal: Gastrointest Endosc Date: 2006-09 Impact factor: 9.427
Authors: Adam V Haycock; Philippa Youd; Paul Bassett; Brian P Saunders; Paris Tekkis; Siwan Thomas-Gibson Journal: Gastrointest Endosc Date: 2009-06-25 Impact factor: 9.427
Authors: Stephen Thomas Ward; Mohammed A Mohammed; Robert Walt; Roland Valori; Tariq Ismail; Paul Dunckley Journal: Gut Date: 2014-01-27 Impact factor: 23.059
Authors: Ilay Habaz; Silvana Perretta; Allan Okrainec; Oscar M Crespin; Andrea V Kwong; Ethan Weiss; Else van der Velden; Ludovica Guerriero; Fabio Longo; Pietro Mascagni; Louis W C Liu; Timothy D Jackson; Lee L Swanstrom; Eran Shlomovitz Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2019-01-02 Impact factor: 4.584