Colonoscopy competence assessment tools: a systematic review of validity evidence.

BACKGROUND: Assessment tools are essential for endoscopy training, being required to support feedback provision, optimize learner capabilities, and document competence. We aimed to evaluate the strength of validity evidence that supports the available colonoscopy direct observation assessment tools using the unified framework of validity. METHODS: We systematically searched five databases for studies investigating colonoscopy direct observation assessment tools from inception until 8 April 2020. We extracted data outlining validity evidence (content, response process, internal structure, relations to other variables, and consequences) from the five sources and graded the degree of evidence, with a maximum score of 15. We assessed educational utility using an Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education framework and methodological quality using the Medical Education Research Quality Instrument (MERSQI). RESULTS: From 10 841 records, we identified 27 studies representing 13 assessment tools (10 adult, 2 pediatric, 1 both). All tools assessed technical skills, while 10 each assessed cognitive and integrative skills. Validity evidence scores ranged from 1-15. The Assessment of Competency in Endoscopy (ACE) tool, the Direct Observation of Procedural Skills (DOPS) tool, and the Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Competency Assessment Tool (GiECAT) had the strongest validity evidence, with scores of 13, 15, and 14, respectively. Most tools were easy to use and interpret, and required minimal resources. MERSQI scores ranged from 9.5-11.5 (maximum score 14.5). CONCLUSIONS: The ACE, DOPS, and GiECAT have strong validity evidence compared with other assessments. Future studies should identify barriers to widespread implementation and report on the use of these tools in credentialing examinations.

Outcomes and Costs Following Ommaya Placement with Thrombocytopenia Among U.S. Patients with Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Placement of Ommaya reservoirs for the administration of intrathecal chemotherapy may be complicated by comorbid thrombocytopenia among patients with hematologic or leptomeningeal disease. Aggregated data on risks of Ommaya placement among thrombocytopenic patients are lacking. This study assesses complications, revision rates, and costs associated with Ommaya placement among patients with thrombocytopenia in a large population sample. METHODS: Using a national administrative database, this retrospective study identifies a cohort of adult patients with cancer who underwent Ommaya placement between 2007 and 2016. Preoperative thrombocytopenia was defined as diagnosis of secondary thrombocytopenia, bleeding event, procedure to control bleeding, or platelet transfusion, within 30 days before index admission. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed to assess costs, 30-day complications, readmissions, and revisions among patients with and without preoperative thrombocytopenia. RESULTS: The analytic cohort included 1652 patients, of whom 29.3% met criteria for preoperative thrombocytopenia. In-hospital mortality rates were 7.7% among patients thrombocytopenia with versus 1.2% among patients without thrombocytopenia (P < 0.001). Preoperative thrombocytopenia was associated with 14.5 times greater hazard of intracranial hemorrhage within 30 days following Ommaya placement, occurring in 25.6% versus 2.0% of patients with and without thrombocytopenia, respectively (P < 0.014). Revision rates did not differ significantly between patients with and without thrombocytopenia. Thrombocytopenia was associated with longer length of stay (7.4 vs. 13.9 days, P < 0.001) and additional $10,000 per patient in costs of index hospitalization (P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: This is the largest study to date documenting costs and complication rates of Ommaya placement in patients with and without thrombocytopenia.