Best Practices in Teaching Endoscopy Based on a Delphi Survey of Gastroenterology Program Directors and Experts in Endoscopy Education.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Teaching endoscopy is a key objective of gastroenterology (GI) fellowship programs but the best approach is not known. We sought to characterize which teaching competencies experts considered most critical for endoscopy education. METHODS: We developed and refined 18 endoscopy teaching competencies based on literature review, personal experience, and interviews with experts. We invited GI fellowship program directors and endoscopy education experts to participate in a Delphi process to rate each proposed competency as essential, important but not essential, or not important using a 70% agreement threshold for consensus. Thirty-four GI fellowship program directors and 2 experts in endoscopy education participated (n = 36). RESULTS: Most survey participants were male (61.8%), associate professors (55.9%), and had performed at least a quarter of procedures with fellows (80.6%). Survey response rates were 94% (34 of 36) for round 1 and 91% (31 of 34) for round 2 (overall 31 of 36; 86.1%). After 2 rounds we achieved the predefined consensus level for most competencies. Fourteen of 18 competencies (77.8%) reached consensus after round 2: 10 (55.6%) were deemed essential and 4 (22.2%) were deemed important but not essential. Essential competencies included the following: discusses patient history and plans for procedure with trainee (100%), assumes control of procedure when trainee is unable to progress or if patient safety concerns arise (100%), maintains attention throughout the case (96.8%), and discusses the next steps in management for the patient (96.8%). CONCLUSIONS: In a national Delphi survey of endoscopy education experts, we identified 10 essential endoscopy teaching competencies. These can be used to frame faculty development and standardize GI fellowship programs to promote high-quality endoscopy education.

The SAFE-T assessment tool: derivation and validation of a web-based application for point-of-care evaluation of gastroenterology fellow performance in colonoscopy.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Attending assessment is a critical part of endoscopic education for gastroenterology fellows. The aim of this study was to develop and validate a concise assessment tool to evaluate real-time fellow performance in colonoscopy administered via a web-based application. METHODS: The Skill Assessment in Fellow Endoscopy Training (SAFE-T) tool was derived as a novel 5-question evaluation tool that captures both summative and formative feedback adapted into a web-based application. A prospective study of 15 gastroenterology fellows (5 fellows each from years 1 to 3 of training) was performed using the SAFE-T tool. An independent reviewer evaluated a subset of these procedures and completed the SAFE-T tool and Mayo Colonoscopy Skills Assessment Tool (MCSAT) for reliability testing. RESULTS: Twenty-six faculty completed 350 SAFE-T evaluations of the 15 fellows in the study. The mean SAFE-T overall score (year 1, 2.00; year 2, 3.84; year 3, 4.28) differentiated each sequential fellow year of training (P < .0001). The mean SAFE-T overall score decreased with increasing case complexity score, with straightforward cases compared with average cases (4.07 vs 3.50, P < .0001), and average cases compared with challenging cases (3.50 vs 3.08, P = .0134). In dual-observed procedures, the SAFE-T tool showed excellent inter-rater reliability with a kappa agreement statistic of 0.898 (P < .0001). Correlation of the SAFE-T overall score with the MCSAT overall hands-on and individual motor scores was excellent (each r > 0.90, P < .0001). CONCLUSIONS: We developed and validated the SAFE-T assessment tool, a concise and web-based means of assessing real-time gastroenterology fellow performance in colonoscopy.

Association between an increase in blood urea nitrogen at 24 hours and worse outcomes in acute nonvariceal upper GI bleeding.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: An increase in blood urea nitrogen (BUN) at 24 hours is a solitary and significant predictor of mortality in patients with acute pancreatitis, which may predict worse outcomes in the similarly resuscitation-requiring condition of acute nonvariceal upper GI bleeding (UGIB). The aim of our study was to assess whether an increase in BUN at 24 hours is predictive of worse clinical outcomes in acute nonvariceal UGIB. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study including patients admitted to an academic hospital from 2004 to 2014 was conducted. An increase in BUN was defined as an increase in BUN at 24 hours of hospitalization compared with BUN at presentation. The primary outcome was a composite of inpatient death, inpatient rebleeding, need for surgical or radiologic intervention, or endoscopic reintervention. Associations between BUN change and outcomes were assessed via the Pearson χ2 test and the Fisher exact test and via logistic regression for adjusted analyses. RESULTS: There were 357 patients included in the analysis with a mean age of 64 years; 54% were men. The mean change in BUN was -10.1 mg/dL (standard deviation, 12.7 mg/dL). Patients with an increased BUN (n = 37 [10%]) were significantly more likely to experience the composite outcome (22% vs 9%, P = .014), including an increased risk of inpatient death (8% vs 1%, P = .004), compared with patients with a decreased or unchanged BUN (n = 320 [90%]). In a logistic regression model adjusting for the AIMS65 score, an increase in BUN was independently associated with an increased risk for the composite outcome (odds ratio, 2.75; P = .026). CONCLUSION: Increasing BUN at 24 hours likely reflects under resuscitation and is a predictor of worse outcomes in patients with acute nonvariceal UGIB.

Timing of upper endoscopy influences outcomes in patients with acute nonvariceal upper GI bleeding.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Current guidelines advise that upper endoscopy be performed within 24 hours of presentation in patients with acute nonvariceal upper GI bleeding (UGIB). However, the role of urgent endoscopy (<12 hours) is controversial. Our aim was to assess whether patients admitted with acute nonvariceal UGIB with lower-risk versus high-risk bleeding have different outcomes with urgent compared with nonurgent endoscopy. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was conducted of patients admitted to an academic hospital with nonvariceal UGIB. The primary outcome was a composite of inpatient death from any cause, inpatient rebleeding, need for surgical or interventional radiologic intervention, or endoscopic reintervention. The Glasgow-Blatchford score (GBS) was calculated; lower risk was defined as a GBS < 12, and high risk was defined as a GBS ≥ 12. RESULTS: Of 361 patients, 37 patients (10%) experienced the primary outcome. Patients who underwent urgent endoscopy had a greater than 5-fold increased risk of reaching the composite outcome (unadjusted odds ratio [OR], 5.6; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.8-11.4; P < .001). Lower-risk patients who were taken urgently to endoscopy were more likely to reach the composite outcome (adjusted OR, 0.71 per 6 hours; 95% CI, 0.55-0.91; P = .008). However, in the high-risk patients, time to endoscopy was not a significant predictor of the primary outcome (adjusted OR, 0.93 per 6 hours; 95% CI, 0.77-1.13; P = .47; adjusted P for interaction = .039). CONCLUSION: Urgent endoscopy is a predictor of worse outcomes in select patients with acute nonvariceal UGIB.

Perceptions of the Inpatient Training Experience: A Nationwide Survey of Gastroenterology Program Directors and Fellows.

BACKGROUND: Inpatient training is a key component of gastroenterology (GI) fellowship programs nationwide, yet little is known about perceptions of the inpatient training experience. AIM: To compare the content, objectives and quality of the inpatient training experience as perceived by program directors (PD) and fellows in US ACGME-accredited GI fellowship programs. METHODS: We conducted a nationwide, online-based survey of GI PDs and fellows at the conclusion of the 2016 academic year. We queried participants about (1) the current models of inpatient training, (2) the content, objectives, and quality of the inpatient training experience, and (3) the frequency and quality of educational activities on the inpatient service. We analyzed five-point Likert items and rank assessments as continuous variables by an independent t test and compared proportions using the Chi-square test. RESULTS: Survey response rate was 48.4% (75/155) for PDs and a total of 194 fellows completed the survey, with both groups reporting the general GI consult team (>90%) as the primary model of inpatient training. PDs and fellows agreed on the ranking of all queried responsibilities of the inpatient fellow to develop during the inpatient service. However, fellows indicated that attendings spent less time teaching and provided less formal feedback than that perceived by PDs (p < 0.0001). PDs rated the overall quality of the inpatient training experience (p < 0.0001) and education on the wards (p = 0.0003) as better than overall ratings by fellows. CONCLUSION: Although GI fellows and PDs agree on the importance of specific fellow responsibilities on the inpatient service, fellows report experiencing less teaching and feedback from attendings than that perceived by PDs. Committing more time to education and assessment may improve fellows' perceptions of the inpatient training experience.

The AIMS65 score compared with the Glasgow-Blatchford score in predicting outcomes in upper GI bleeding.

INTRODUCTION: We previously derived and validated the AIMS65 score, a mortality prognostic scale for upper GI bleeding (UGIB). OBJECTIVE: To validate the AIMS65 score in a different patient population and compare it with the Glasgow-Blatchford risk score (GBRS). DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. PATIENTS: Adults with a primary diagnosis of UGIB. PRIMARY OUTCOME: inpatient mortality. SECONDARY OUTCOMES: composite clinical endpoint of inpatient mortality, rebleeding, and endoscopic, radiologic or surgical intervention; blood transfusion; intensive care unit admission; rebleeding; length of stay; timing of endoscopy. The area under the receiver-operating characteristic curve (AUROC) was calculated for each score. RESULTS: Of the 278 study patients, 6.5% died and 35% experienced the composite clinical endpoint. The AIMS65 score was superior in predicting inpatient mortality (AUROC, 0.93 vs 0.68; P < .001), whereas the GBRS was superior in predicting blood transfusions (AUROC, 0.85 vs 0.65; P < .01) The 2 scores were similar in predicting the composite clinical endpoint (AUROC, 0.62 vs 0.68; P = .13) as well as the secondary outcomes. A GBRS of 10 and 12 or more maximized the sum of the sensitivity and specificity for inpatient mortality and rebleeding, respectively. The cutoff was 2 or more for the AIMS65 score for both outcomes. LIMITATIONS: Retrospective, single-center study. CONCLUSION: The AIMS65 score is superior to the GBRS in predicting inpatient mortality from UGIB, whereas the GBRS is superior for predicting blood transfusion. Both scores are similar in predicting the composite clinical endpoint and other outcomes in clinical care and resource use.

A Longitudinal Case-Based Global Health Curriculum for the Medical Student Clerkship Year.

Introduction: Over 20% of U.S. medical students express interest in global health (GH) and are searching for opportunities within the field. In addition, domestic practice increasingly requires an understanding of the social factors affecting patients' health. Unfortunately, only 39% of medical schools offer formal GH education, and there is a need to incorporate more GH into medical school curricula. Methods: We designed a longitudinal case-based curriculum for the core clerkships. We conducted an institution-wide survey to determine baseline GH interest and developed three case-based sessions to incorporate into medicine, surgery, and pediatrics clerkships. The cases included clinical learning while exploring fundamental GH concepts. Cases were developed with GH faculty, and the pilot was implemented from October to December 2019 with 55 students. We used pre- and postdidactic surveys to assess interest in GH and elicit qualitative feedback. A follow-up survey assessed students' identification of barriers faced by their patients domestically. Results: Students felt that clinical management, physical exam skills, epidemiology, and social determinants of health were strengths of the sessions and that they were able to apply more critical thinking skills and cultural humility to their patients afterwards. Students felt that simulation would be a great addition to the curriculum and wanted both more time per session and more sessions overall. Discussion: Integrating GH didactics into the core clerkships has potential to address gaps in GH education and to help students make connections between clinical learning and GH, enhancing their care of patients both domestically and in future GH work.

The SAFE-T upper endoscopy tool: a web-based application for the point-of-care evaluation of gastroenterology fellow performance in upper endoscopy.

BACKGROUND: Attending assessment is a critical part of endoscopic education for gastroenterology fellows. The aim of this study was to develop and validate a concise, web-based assessment tool to evaluate real-time fellow performance in upper endoscopy. METHODS: We developed the Skill Assessment in Fellow Endoscopy Training (SAFE-T) upper endoscopy tool to capture both summative and formative feedback in a concise, five-part questionnaire. The tool mirrors the previously validated SAFE-T colonoscopy tool and is administered electronically via a web-based application. We evaluated the tool in a prospective study of 15 gastroenterology fellows (5 fellows each from Years 1-3 of training) over the 2018-2019 academic year. An independent reviewer evaluated a subset of these procedures and completed both the SAFE-T and Assessment of Competency in Endoscopy (ACE) upper endoscopy forms for reliability testing. RESULTS: Twenty faculty completed 413 SAFE-T evaluations of the 15 fellows in the study. The mean SAFE-T overall score differentiated each sequential fellow year of training, with first-year cases having lower performance than second-year cases (3.31 vs 4.25, P < 0.001) and second-year cases having lower performance than third-year cases (4.25 vs 4.56, P < 0.001). The mean SAFE-T overall score decreased with increasing case-complexity score, with straightforward compared with average cases (3.98 vs 3.39, P < 0.001) and average compared with challenging cases (3.39 vs 2.84, P = 0.042). In dual-observed procedures, the SAFE-T tool showed excellent inter-rater reliability with a Kappa agreement statistic of 0.815 (P = 0.001). The SAFE-T overall score also highly correlated with the ACE upper endoscopy overall hands-on score (r = 0.76, P = 0.011). CONCLUSIONS: We developed and validated the SAFE-T upper endoscopy tool-a concise and web-based means of assessing real-time gastroenterology fellow performance in upper endoscopy.

The medical specialty of faculty interviewers does not influence scores in the internal medicine residency interview.

BACKGROUND: In response to the growing number of applicants, internal medicine (IM) residency programs have needed to expand their faculty interviewer pool. Medicine specialists (MS) have increasingly been asked to serve as faculty interviewers (FI) in addition to general internal medicine (GIM) physicians. OBJECTIVE: To assess if MS rate IM applicants differently than GIM physicians. METHODS: We performed a retrospective review of our institution's IM residency interview evaluation forms for the 2017-18 application season. The FI assigned an interview score for each applicant ranging from 1 to 5 in 0.5-point increments, with 1 defined as "absolutely top candidate" and 5 as "not suitable." We then compared characteristics of the FI based on mean interview score given using trend tests and linear regression. RESULTS: There were a total of 634 interviews of 274 applicants conducted by 72 FI over the 2017-18 recruitment period. 43 (59.7%) of the FI practiced GIM and 29 (40.3%) practiced an MS. The mean interview score given by an FI was 2.0 (SD 0.4). Trend test analyses showed no association between an interviewer's medicine specialty status (p=0.09) and the mean interview score given. On linear regression, there was no significant difference in interview scores given by an FI who practiced GIM vs those who practiced an MS (-0.13 change, p=0.168). CONCLUSIONS: We did not find any significant difference in the interview scores given to IM applicants by MS compared with GIM physicians. This finding supports the inclusion of MS in the IM residency selection process.