Eosinophilic Esophagitis: Etiology and Therapy.

Eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) is a relatively recently identified but now frequently encountered antigen/immune-mediated disease which places significant burden on patients and the healthcare system. With its growing prevalence and recognition by healthcare providers in multiple disciplines, substantial progress has been made regarding the diagnostic criteria, clinical evaluation, tools for disease assessment, and immune pathways related to pathogenesis. Current treatment goals focus on the amelioration of inflammation and prevention of remodeling consequences using proton pump inhibitors, swallowed topical steroids, elimination diets, and esophageal dilation. Ongoing research holds promise for more efficacious and targeted therapies as well as a personalized approach to the care of patients with EoE.

Effect of Polypectomy Simulation-Based Mastery Learning on Skill Retention Among Practicing Endoscopists.

PURPOSE: Practicing endoscopists frequently perform and teach screening colonoscopies and polypectomies, but there is no standardized method to train and assess physicians who perform polypectomy procedures. The authors created a polypectomy simulation-based mastery learning (SBML) curriculum and hypothesized that completion of the curriculum would lead to immediate improvement in polypectomy skills and skill retention at 6 and 12 months after training. METHOD: The authors performed a pretest-posttest cohort study with endoscopists who completed SBML and were randomized to follow-up at 6 or 12 months from May 2021 to August 2022. Participants underwent SBML training, including a pretest, a video lecture, deliberate practice, and a posttest. All learners were required to meet or exceed a minimum passing standard on a 17-item skills checklist before completing training and were randomized to follow-up at 6 or 12 months. The authors compared simulated polypectomy skills performance on the checklist from pretest to posttest and posttest to 6- or 12-month follow-up test. RESULTS: Twenty-four of 30 eligible participants (80.0%) completed the SBML intervention, and 20 of 24 (83.3%) completed follow-up testing. The minimum passing standard was set at 93% of checklist items correct. The pretest passing rate was 4 of 24 participants (16.7%) compared with 24 of 24 participants (100%) at posttest ( P < .001). There were no significant differences in passing rates from posttest to combined 6- and 12-month posttest in which 18 of 20 participants (90.0%) passed. CONCLUSIONS: Before training and despite years of clinical experience, practicing endoscopists demonstrated poor performance of polypectomy skills. SBML was an effective method for practicing endoscopists to acquire and maintain polypectomy skills during a 6- to 12-month period.

Simulation-based training improves polypectomy skills among practicing endoscopists.

Background and study aims Practicing endoscopists have variable polypectomy skills during colonoscopy and limited training opportunities for improvement. Simulation-based training enhances procedural skill, but its impact on polypectomy is unclear. We developed a simulation-based polypectomy intervention to improve polypectomy competency. Methods All faculty endoscopists at our tertiary care center who perform colonoscopy with polypectomy were recruited for a simulation-based intervention assessing sessile and stalked polypectomy. Endoscopists removed five polyps in a simulation environment at pretest followed by a training intervention including a video, practice, and one-on-one feedback. Within 1-4 weeks, endoscopists removed five new simulated polyps at post-test. We used the Direct Observation of Polypectomy Skills (DOPyS) checklist for assessment, evaluating individual polypectomy skills, and global competency (scale: 1-4). Competency was defined as an average global competency score of ≥ 3. Results 83 % (29/35) of eligible endoscopists participated and 95 % (276/290) of planned polypectomies were completed. Only 17 % (5/29) of endoscopists had average global competency scores that were competent at pretest compared with 52 % (15/29) at post-test ( P  = 0.01). Of all completed polypectomies, the competent polypectomy rate significantly improved from pretest to post-test (55 % vs. 71 %; P  < 0.01). This improvement was significant for sessile polypectomy (37 % vs. 65 %; P  < 0.01) but not for stalked polypectomy (82 % vs. 80 %; P  = 0.70). Conclusions Simulation-based training improved polypectomy skills among practicing endoscopists. Further studies are needed to assess the translation of simulation-based education to clinical practice.